[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 221 (Friday, November 17, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 80238-80256]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-25375]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 54
[WC Docket Nos. 10-90, 23-328, 14-58, 09-197; WT Docket No. 10-208; FCC
23-87; FR ID 184414]
Connect America Fund, Alaska Connect Fund, ETC Annual Reports and
Certifications, Telecommunications Carriers Eligible To Receive
Universal Service Support, Universal Service Reform--Mobility Fund
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC
or Commission) adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that
seeks comment on the next phase of high-cost fixed and mobile support
in Alaska. The Commission initiates this rulemaking to seek comment on
innovative solutions and unique accommodations necessary to continue
supporting broadband service to Alaska.
DATES: Comments are due on or before January 16, 2024, and reply
comments are due on or before February 15, 2024.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by WC Docket Nos. 10-90,
23-328, 14-58, 09-197 or WT Docket No. 10-208 by any of the following
methods:
Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
using the internet by accessing the ECFS: www.fcc.gov/ecfs.
Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must
file an original and one copy of each filing.
Filings can be sent by commercial overnight courier, or by first-
class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be
addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary,
Federal Communications Commission.
Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive,
Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.
U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority
mail must be addressed to 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.
Effective March 19, 2020, and until further notice, the
Commission no longer accepts any hand or messenger delivered filings.
This is a temporary measure taken to help protect the health and safety
of individuals, and to mitigate the transmission of COVID-19. See FCC
Announces Closure of FCC Headquarters Open Window and Change in Hand-
Delivery Policy, Public Notice, 35 FCC Rcd 2788, 2788-89 (OS 2020).
People with Disabilities. To request materials in accessible
formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic
files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-
418-0432 (tty).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, please
contact, Rebekah Douglas, Telecommunications Access Policy Division,
Wireline Competition Bureau, at [email protected] or (202) 418-
7931 or Matt Warner, Competition and Infrastructure Policy Division,
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, at [email protected] or (202)
418-2419.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's NPRM
in WC Docket Nos. 10-90, 23-328, 14-58, 09-197 and WT Docket No. 10-
208; FCC 23-87, adopted on October 19, 2023 and released on October 20,
2023. The full text of this document is available at the following
internet address: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-23-87A1.pdf.
Availability of Documents. Comments, reply comments, and ex parte
submissions will be available for public inspection during regular
business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Federal Communications
Commission, 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554. These documents will
also be available via ECFS. Documents will be available electronically
in ASCII, Microsoft Word, and/or Adobe Acrobat.
Filing Requirements. Comments and reply comments exceeding ten
pages must include a short and concise summary of the substantive
arguments raised in the pleading. Comments and reply comments must also
comply with Sec. 1.49 and all other applicable sections of the
Commission's rules. The Commission directs all interested parties to
include the name of the filing party and the date of the filing on each
page of their comments and reply comments. All parties are encouraged
to utilize a table of contents, regardless of the length of their
submission. The Commission also strongly encourages parties to follow
the same order and organization set forth in the NPRM in order to
facilitate the Commission's internal review process.
Ex Parte Rules--Permit-But-Disclose. These proceedings shall be
treated as a ``permit-but-disclose'' proceeding in accordance with the
Commission's ex parte rules. Persons making ex parte presentations must
file a copy of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any
oral presentation within two business days after the presentation
(unless a different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period
applies).
In light of the Commission's trust relationship with Tribal Nations
and its commitment to engage in government-to-government consultation
with them, it finds the public interest requires a limited modification
of the ex parte rules in these proceedings. Tribal Nations, like other
interested parties, should file comments, reply comments, and ex parte
presentations in the record to put facts and arguments before the
Commission in a manner such that they may be relied upon in the
decision-making process consistent with the requirements of the
Administrative Procedure Act. However, at the option of the Tribe, ex
parte presentations made during consultations by elected and appointed
leaders and duly appointed representatives of federally recognized
Indian Tribes and Alaska Native Villages to Commission decision makers
shall be exempt from disclosure in permit-but-disclose proceedings and
exempt from the prohibitions during the Sunshine Agenda period. To be
clear, while the Commission recognizes consultation is critically
important, it emphasizes that it will rely in its decision-making only
on those presentations that are placed in the public record for these
proceedings.
[[Page 80239]]
Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that
memoranda summarizing the presentation must (1) list all persons
attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex
parte presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and
arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted
in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already
reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda, or other
filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such
data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other
filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where
such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the
memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex
parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must
be filed consistent with rule 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by
rule 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a method of
electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda
summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto,
must be filed through the electronic comment filing system available
for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format (e.g.,
.doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding
should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.
Synopsis
I. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
1. In the NPRM, the Commission seeks comment on the next phase of
high-cost fixed and mobile support in Alaska (the ``Alaska Connect
Fund'' or ``Alaska Connect''). The Commission asks how it can best
support the rural and remote areas of Alaska once the support terms for
the current incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (LECs) and competitive
eligible telecommunications carriers (ETCs) have ended. The Commission
has recognized that these areas of Alaska are some of the hardest to
serve in the country, where many residents lack access to high-quality
affordable broadband and the opportunity to keep up with the advances
in technology that Americans living elsewhere enjoy. The Commission
initiates this rulemaking to seek comment on innovative solutions and
unique accommodations necessary to continue supporting broadband
service to Alaska.
2. Currently, the Commission provides high-cost support to Alaska
Plan carriers, Alaska Communications Systems (ACS) and Alternative
Connect America Cost Model (A-CAM) carriers operating in Alaska to fund
the deployment of voice and broadband networks. In the 2016 Alaska Plan
Order, 81 FR 69696, October 7, 2016, the Commission stated that it
expected to conduct a rulemaking prior to the close of the 10-year
support term to determine how support would be determined after the end
of the 10-year support term for rate-of-return carrier participants in
the Alaska Plan, and that the Commission would consider adjustments for
marketplace changes and the realities of the current time. In the ACS
Order, 81 FR 83706, November 22, 2016, the Commission stated that it
expected to begin a rulemaking in year eight of the program to
determine how support might be awarded for the ACS locations at the end
of the ten-year period.
3. In this document, the Commission initiates a rulemaking to
better understand all the changes, both in technology and in the
broadband availability and funding landscape, that have occurred in
Alaska since the inception of the Alaska Plan and ACS Order in 2016.
The Commission undertakes a fresh look at the most efficient use of
Universal Service Fund (USF) high-cost support in Alaska going forward
not only to help connect unserved Alaskan communities, but also to
support existing service and service funded through other Federal and
state programs. The Commission relies on its experiences from the
existing Alaska Plan and the record stemming from proposals in recent
petitions to develop a framework on how best to structure and target
Alaska Connect Fund support.
4. The Commission also concurrently adopted a Report and Order
(Order) amending existing rules and requirements governing the
management and administration of the USF high-cost program. The
modifications adopted in the concurrently adopted Order streamline
processes, align timelines, and refine certain rules to more precisely
address specific situations experienced by carriers.
5. Alaska Connect Fund for Fixed Carriers. In the NPRM, the
Commission seeks comment on a number of issues to ensure Alaskans
continue to have access to reliable, affordable high-speed broadband as
the Commission approaches the end of the Alaska Plan and the ACS Order
obligations and support terms. The Commission appreciates that Alaskan
carriers still face unique circumstances and conditions that make it
challenging both to deploy and maintain voice and broadband-capable
networks in much of Alaska, including varied terrain, harsh climate,
isolated populations, shortened construction season, and lack of access
to infrastructure. However, the Commission also recognizes that much
progress has been made to date, due to the several years of USF high-
cost support as well as the advancements in technology and the
availability of additional Federal funding programs for broadband
services.
6. Carriers and commenters alike applaud the progress that has been
made in extending fiber networks to rural and remote areas of Alaska,
which has brought thousands of residents and small businesses online.
However, while progress has been made, other commenters and carriers
point out that much work remains in Alaska to reach unserved and
underserved residents with the necessary infrastructure. Indeed, based
on Broadband Data Collection (BDC) data as of December 2022, Alaska
ranks 55th of 56 states and territories for availability coverage for
fixed and mobile service. Thus, there continues to be a significant
need for funding to support broadband service in Alaska. The Commission
seeks comment on the solutions that will result in the greatest
improvements in access. How can the Commission ensure the Alaska
Connect Fund will result in Alaska residents having access to
affordable service plans? How can the Commission ensure that USF high-
cost support best complements other programs focused on improving
affordability? Alaska receives support from all the USF programs,
including Lifeline, E-Rate and Rural Healthcare Program. The Commission
seeks comment on ways that the Alaska Connect Fund support can be
utilized to work in cooperation with other USF disbursements to
optimize the provision of advanced voice and broadband services.
7. As current funding programs for Alaskan carriers near their end
dates, the Commission seeks guidance on how USF high-cost support can
best serve the public interest in Alaska. In so doing, the Commission
must take into account legislative requirements, improved mapping of
broadband availability, and broadband support provided by other Federal
agencies. The Commission seeks comment on the broader picture for
universal service support in Alaska and urge commenters to address
specifically the changes in technology, mapping, and other Federal
[[Page 80240]]
funding programs and how they might affect the future of the Alaska
high-cost support program. In the following the Commission seeks
comment on targeted issues related to the next phase of the Alaska
high-cost support mechanism, including eligible areas and location,
support amounts or mechanisms, budget, term of support, public interest
obligations, support term, eligible carriers, accountability and
oversight. The Commission also seeks comment on transitional and phase-
down support, digital equity, broadband affordability, cybersecurity
and supply chain risk management, and Tribal matters.
8. While significant progress has been made in Alaska since the
original Alaska Plan was established, many areas in the state could
still be considered unserved or underserved; and now, the Commission
has the required data and the resulting maps to efficiently inform its
decision making going forward. The Commission can determine statewide,
using the National Broadband Map, that about 21% of broadband-
serviceable units lack at least 25/3 Mbps and about 27% of broadband-
serviceable units lack at least 100/20 Mbps fixed terrestrial service.
The Commission can granularly see exactly where those broadband-
serviceable units are located. Furthermore, the National Broadband Map
allows the Commission to conveniently assess coverage based on
technology type, which may be valuable to tackle the distinct
challenges in Alaska. In recognition of the unique challenges of
Alaska, in the following, the Commission seeks comment on how to define
unserved and, if needed, underserved for the purposes of this next
phase for support in Alaska.
9. The Commission seeks comment on how to determine areas and
services that would be eligible for the Alaska Connect Fund.
Particularly in light of the evolving competitive landscape, should the
Alaska Connect Fund include the same or different eligible areas as the
Alaska Plan? How does the National Broadband Map data generally inform
the Commission regarding where to focus Alaska Connect Fund support?
The Broadband DATA Act requires that the Commission use the BDC and the
Broadband Serviceable Location Fabric (Fabric) ``to determine the areas
in which terrestrial fixed, fixed wireless, mobile, and satellite
broadband internet access service is and is not available, . . . when
making any new award of funding with respect to the deployment of
broadband internet access intended for use by residential and mobile
customers.'' This new data allows the Commission to better assess where
fixed broadband service is--and is not--available in Alaska. Consistent
with the Broadband DATA Act, this data will inform the Commission's
determination of the eligible areas for the Alaska Connect Fund.
10. Additionally, the Broadband Interagency Coordination Agreement
requires the FCC, United States Department of Agriculture, and the
National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to
``consider basing the distribution of funds for broadband deployment .
. . on standardized data regarding broadband coverage,'' and the
agencies meet regularly to ensure the most efficient allocation of
Federal broadband funding. As noted in this document, the state was
recently allocated more than $1 billion in Broadband Equity Access and
Deployment (BEAD) funding and has begun planning for its use. The State
of Alaska Broadband Office (ABO) was established to strategically
consider how best to use this Federal funding to connect residents of
Alaska with advanced technology. The ABO has published on its website
maps and data related to the estimated costs to serve the remaining
unserved and underserved areas of Alaska. Additionally, several
projects have already been established and are underway to build out
broadband to Tribal and other areas of the state.
11. The Commission seeks comment on how the funding received by and
the decisions of the State of Alaska should inform its determination of
the eligible areas for the Alaska Connect Fund. To the extent there are
discrepancies between the National Broadband Map and ABO maps, the
Commission's robust challenge process for the National Broadband map
can be used to address these discrepancies, and the Commission
encourages the ABO and other state, local governments and communities
in Alaska to use that existing process.
12. Broadband serviceable locations on the National Broadband Map
can generally be broken down into four categories: (1) those served by
the ILEC only; (2) those served by both the ILEC and an unsubsidized
provider; (3) those served by an unsubsidized provider only; and (4)
those that are unserved. The Commission seeks comment on how the Alaska
Connect Fund should treat eligibility for each of these types of
locations? How should the Commission define unserved? The Commission
seeks comment on whether to establish a definition for underserved?
Should the Commission define those terms consistent with Enhanced A-CAM
(E-ACAM), or the BEAD program, or should it adopt another definition?
Does the Alaska Broadband Office or other broadband support programs in
Alaska use different definitions, and if so, what are the differences?
13. Additionally, one of the ways in which Alaska is unique is that
while villages or communities may be far from urban areas, individuals
or individual locations within those villages or communities may be
relatively close together. Accordingly, the Commission seeks comment on
determining eligibility at a village or community level instead of by
individual location. How should the Commission define village and
community for this purpose? Would this approach better help address
lack of service in unserved areas? If the Commission adopts such an
approach, how should it address geographically isolated individual
locations? What is the most appropriate metric for identifying eligible
locations and how should the Commission define eligible locations for
this purpose? Is defining eligibility based on village or community
level instead of location consistent with the BDC?
14. Middle Mile. Carriers have argued to the Commission that both
lack of availability and the cost of middle mile is what prevents
deployment of high-quality, affordable services to the most rural and
remote Alaskan villages and populations. Satellite networks made
available after the start of the Alaska Plan are providing higher
capacity and lower latency middle mile transport. What is the typical
cost, or range of costs, for middle mile transport in Alaska today? USF
high-cost Alaska Plan support, like model-based support, may be used
anywhere in the network, including middle-mile, as long as carriers are
improving service. In the 2016 Alaska Plan Order, the Commission
required recipients to report data on their use of middle-mile
facilities. The Commission seeks comment on how this data should inform
the distribution of support in the Alaska Connect Fund.
15. The Commission seeks comment on whether and how it might
provide direct support for middle mile facilities and transport
services under the Alaska Connect Fund, particularly in light of other
Federal programs directed at supporting middle mile. What types of
middle-mile expenses should be eligible for support? Should the Alaska
Connect Fund support construction of new middle mile facilities, the
cost of leased middle mile facilities, or both? Should support for
middle-mile facilities or services be limited to a certain percentage
of overall support received? Under Alaska Plan obligations, carriers
are required to report to the Commission
[[Page 80241]]
on whether new middle mile transport is commercially available in their
service area and increase obligations accordingly. Are there middle-
mile services that are ubiquitous, reliable and affordable such that
the Commission should condition support on their use prior to
authorizing support? Does funding middle mile directly result in more
affordable retail broadband prices? Should the Commission allow support
for redundant networks to enhance network resiliency? The Alaska Remote
Carrier Coalition (ARCC) filed a petition arguing for the adoption of
its Alaska Middle Mile Expense Support (AMMES) calculator to determine
funding support amounts. The method, as proposed, would have the
Commission review carriers' accounting, which is more akin to a cost-
based mechanism. The Commission seeks comment on using the AMMES plan
calculator for determining middle mile funding support amounts or other
methods that align with modernizing support.
16. Direct-to-Home Satellite Services. The Commission seeks comment
on whether the Alaska Connect Fund should provide support to carriers
that provide direct-to-home satellite service. Parties have commented
that the remote and insular nature of some areas within Alaska make
serving all areas of Alaska difficult with terrestrial-only solutions.
Indeed, customers are subscribing to direct-to-home satellite service
available after the start of the Alaska Plan. Although carriers are
permitted to use satellite technology in their networks, the Alaska
Plan does not provide support for carriers that provide direct-to-home
satellite service. These satellite providers argue their service is no
longer ``expensive'' or ``performance-limiting,'' and just as reliable,
if not more reliable than traditional fiber-based networks while also
being ubiquitous.
17. How should new satellite services factor into the Commission's
subsidy determinations? In certain communities, will satellite service
be a necessary component to providing internet for the foreseeable
future? Should the Commission focus on limiting subsidies for satellite
services to certain areas of Alaska, e.g., ``extremely remote areas''
or ``areas with ultra-high costs''? How would the Commission define
those terms? What are the physical barriers to receiving satellite
service or reliable service in Alaska? Are consumer services using
satellite affordable for Alaskans? How do the costs of satellite
services compare to services that use terrestrial solutions? Do direct-
to-home satellite providers offer voice service? The Commission seeks
comment on the need to provide support for voice-only providers in
communities, even if there is an unsubsidized internet provider.
18. The BEAD program requires states to establish an ``Extremely
High Cost Per Location Threshold'' and allows states to fund
alternative technologies, including technologies that do not meet the
BEAD definition of ``Reliable Broadband Service but otherwise satisfy
the Program's technical requirements,'' in order to not exceed that
threshold. The Commission seeks comment on whether it should take into
account Alaska's Extremely High Cost Per Location Threshold
determination in assessing an area's eligibility for the Alaska Connect
Fund. How can the Commission use Alaska's determination most
appropriately in its process?
19. Next, the Commission seeks comment on carriers eligible to
participate in the Alaska Connect Fund support program. The Alaska Plan
includes 13 rate-of-return carriers, while ACS, as a price cap carrier,
receives frozen support. The high-cost program also supports a small
number of A-CAM carriers operating in Alaska. Carriers and commenters
have argued that the Commission should fold all high-cost Alaskan
carriers into one support mechanism going forward. The Alaska Telephone
Association (ATA) suggests that the Commission allow ACS and A-CAM
carriers an opportunity to join that mechanism. ATA and ARCC advocate
that high-cost support for fixed services in Alaska continue to be
limited to ILECs. However, the record supports, and the Commission
agrees, that it should explore whether non-ILECs should be eligible.
While the ILECs do continue to serve the communities, others may be in
a position to efficiently and effectively serve those same communities.
Further, the Commission seeks comment on whether in some areas the ILEC
is no longer the predominant broadband provider, which would make ILEC-
only support inconsistent with broad service availability for
consumers. The Commission seeks comment on whether any broadband
carrier serving Alaska (or even those not currently serving Alaska)
should be eligible to participate in the Alaska Connect Fund. Should
there be existing minimum requirements for eligibility in the Alaska
Connect Fund? Should both terrestrial and non-terrestrial providers be
allowed to participate in the Alaska Connect Fund? Should the
Commission allow partnerships or consortia to participate? Should
Alaska A-CAM carriers that did not elect E-ACAM support be able to
participate in the Alaska Connect Fund? Should carriers that have not
met public interest obligations under the original Alaska Plan be
precluded from participating in the Alaska Connect Fund or subject to
enhanced compliance requirements?
20. Eligible Telecommunications Carrier Status. The Communications
Act of 1934 (the Act) requires that all recipients of USF high-cost
support obtain ETC status. It limits the Commission's authority to
designate ETCs to situations when a carrier demonstrates that a state
commission lacks jurisdiction over that carrier. In Alaska, the
Regulatory Commission of Alaska is the governing body that adjudicates
that process and designates carriers as ETCs in their service
territories. As such, the Commission has limited authority to designate
ETC status to a carrier operating in Alaska. The Commission seeks
comment on the barriers to obtaining ETC status in Alaska. Are there
specific barriers for satellite technology in obtaining ETC status in
Alaska? Should ILECs be eligible to receive support outside of their
current ETC areas? If the Commission does so, what considerations does
it need to make regarding the reliability of voice services in those
areas?
21. The Commission seeks comment on how to determine the Alaska
Connect Fund support amounts to best support service in Alaska. The
Commission has used various mechanisms for determining support amounts
in the past, including frozen support, adjusted frozen support, model-
based support, and competitive processes. The Alaska Plan and ACS
support are based on frozen support--meaning that current support
amounts, which were originally determined through a cost-based
mechanism, are the same as they were on a specific date. However, as
the Commission has reformed the high-cost program, it has aimed to base
support amounts on a forward-looking cost model or a competitive
process. Additionally, Congress required states, including Alaska, to
conduct competitive processes to distribute BEAD funding. The
Commission seeks comment on which of these mechanisms makes the most
sense for the Alaska Connect Fund. Should the type of support mechanism
be informed by whether an area is served by the ILEC only, ILEC and
unsubsidized competitor, only unsubsidized competitor or is unserved?
If so, which would be the most efficient mechanism for reaching the
Commission's universal service goals through the Alaska Connect Fund?
For example, if there are one or more unsubsidized competitors in an
area,
[[Page 80242]]
does that mean a competitive process would be best? Should the
Commission endeavor to award funding in a similar or different way than
the BEAD program? In the recent Enhanced A-CAM Order, 88 FR 55918,
August 17, 2023, the Commission sought comment on issues related to
providing support for served locations. The Commission incorporates
those questions here and seeks comment on their specific applicability
to the Alaska Connect Fund.
22. Alaska Cost Model. The Commission has recognized the
limitations of the Connect America Cost Model (CAM) for Alaska, which
led to it establishing the Alaska Plan. The Commission seeks comment on
whether it should develop a cost model to help determine support
amounts for the Alaska Connect Fund carriers. Would this be an
efficient way to determine support amounts going forward? What inputs
are required for a cost model? The ABO introduced a model that
evaluates, at a high level, the math associated with the cost of
operating in remote communities in Alaska, but it acknowledges that it
does not claim the numbers in the model ``match any real-world
applications.'' The ABO also introduced a technology neutral cost model
that estimates the capital costs of new broadband projects in Alaska,
along with supporting maps identifying unserved and underserved
communities. The Commission seeks comment on these models. Should the
Commission consider using or leveraging these models for determining
support amounts? Are there other already developed cost models that the
Commission could utilize to establish support amounts?
23. AMMES Cost Calculator. The ARCC petitioned the Commission to
adopt its AMMES plan directed at providing cost-based support to
carriers with ``ultra-high'' middle-mile costs. The plan takes into
account both the capital and the operational middle-mile expenses
associated with providing high-speed broadband service, using its
Alaska Middle Mile Calculator Template (AMMCAT) to identify the
locations that need support. The Commission seeks comment on the
accuracy and effectiveness of this tool. Does the Commission have
broader applications in Alaska?
24. Alaska Competitive Process. The Commission seeks comment on
whether to adopt a competitive process to award Alaska Connect Fund
support either using a competitive process similar to the process in
Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands under the Bringing Puerto Rico
Together and the Connect USVI programs; or using an auction mechanism
similar to the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund (RDOF). Is there enough
competition in Alaska to make a competitive process meaningful? Is an
Alaska-specific cost model a necessary safeguard for a competitive
process? The Commission again notes that Congress required a
competitive process for BEAD funding awardees, including Alaska. The
Commission seeks comment on whether there are any lessons that can be
learned so far from the development of the BEAD process that it should
consider in developing the Alaska Connect Fund.
25. Frozen Support. The ATA Petition suggests the Commission
maintain current frozen support amounts for each carrier (adjusted for
inflation). The Commission seeks comment on whether or under what
circumstances this is the appropriate way to allocate support for
recipients of the Alaska Connect Fund. How would the Commission
determine support amounts for ACS and any other new participants in the
program? Should the Commission take the same overall support amount
(adjusted for inflation), but reallocate those amounts among the
current recipients, and if so how?
26. The Commission seeks comment on an appropriate budget for the
Alaska Connect Fund. In considering the budget for the Alaska Connect
Fund, the Commission seeks to balance the need to provide support that
is sufficient to achieve its goals, while meeting the Commission's
obligation not to unnecessarily burden American consumers. As the
Commission has previously recognized, the cost of universal service is
ultimately borne by American consumers and businesses. Support that is
greater than necessary therefore violates the Commission's obligation
to be a good steward of the USF. In this NPRM, the Commission seeks
comment on providing two types of funding: (1) support for areas that
still require buildout; and (2) ongoing support for areas already built
out. The Commission seeks comment on the budget needed for each. The
2016 Alaska Plan Order provided for $1.5 billion in frozen high-cost
support over ten years. The ACS Order provided for $200 million in
frozen high-cost support over ten years. The ATA Petition suggests,
even with potentially more participants, that the budget is acceptable
if adjusted for inflation, and the ARCC Petition proposed $25 million
for the first four years of its plan to support middle-mile costs only.
How should deployment progress and expenditures to date inform the
budget for the Alaska Connect Fund? How should allowing new
participants impact the budget?
27. Additionally, the State of Alaska and the ABO are currently
engaged in the planning phase for BEAD funding, and there are several
other broadband projects already underway. The BEAD program overall has
a goal of affordable high-speed internet for all residents in all 50
states, DC, and the territories by 2030, and Alaska has been allocated
more than $1 billion in BEAD funding. The Commission seeks comment on
how Alaska's BEAD and other government funding should affect the budget
for the Alaska Connect Fund. In the Future of USF Report, the
Commission noted that preventing duplicative support was its primary
goal in interagency coordination regarding broadband funding,
particularly BEAD funding. Accordingly, the Commission seeks comment on
determining a budget that meets its public interest obligations,
complements BEAD and other sources of broadband funding, and avoids
duplicate support.
28. The ATA Petition suggests that the existing Alaska Plan budget
be adjusted for inflation and adjusted annually going forward. The
Commission has adjusted for inflation in various situations in the
past. For example, in 2018, the Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau)
set the budget and an annual increase for inflation for legacy rate-of-
return carriers receiving CAF (Connect America Fund) Broadband Loop
Support. The Commission used an inflation adjustment factor based on
the United States Department of Commerce's Gross Domestic Product-
Chained Price Index to determine the amount of adjustment. The
Commission has also used other tools for indexing for inflation, for
example, the Consumer Price Index from the Department of Labor, Bureau
of Labor Statistics. Recently, however, the Commission declined to
adopt an annual inflation adjustment to E-ACAM support amounts. The
Commission seeks comment on whether the budget for the Alaska Connect
Fund should be adjusted for inflation, and if so, by how much and how
often. What is the appropriate method for adjusting for inflation? Do
all carriers experience the same pressures of inflation? If the Alaska
Connect Fund supports different carriers and services than the Alaska
Plan, is an initial inflation adjustment necessary or already built in
to the newly established budget? ATA suggests that the budget should be
increased annually. If the Commission decides to adjust the budget
going forward based on inflation, is annually the right interval?
[[Page 80243]]
29. The Commission seeks comment on the public interest obligations
for the Alaska Connect Fund--in particular, speed, latency, data usage,
and reasonably comparable rates. Should those obligations differ based
on the whether the location is: (1) served by the ILEC only; (2) served
by both the ILEC and an unsubsidized provider; (3) served by an
unsubsidized provider only; or (4) unserved? Does the Commission need
to establish obligations for underserved locations? In addition, how
should it account for the type of middle mile being used to serve the
location? If the Alaska Connect Fund provides support for middle mile
infrastructure, how does the Commission safeguard against opportunistic
pricing?
30. Performance Plan. In the Alaska Plan, each carrier was required
to submit a performance plan that was reviewed and approved by the
Bureau. The plans were, and still are, subject to modification based on
changed circumstances. The Commission seeks comment on whether it
should continue to use this approach, particularly in light of the
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Acts (Infrastructure Act) use of
specific speed, latency and other minimums. If the Commission conducts
a competitive process based on ability to meet certain requirements, is
a performance plan still necessary?
31. Speed. The Commission prioritized 10/1 Mbps in both the 2016
Alaska Plan Order and the ACS Order, adopting 10/1 Mbps as the minimum
broadband speed requirement, but it authorized approval of some Alaska
Plan carrier performance plans that offered faster or slower speeds in
certain instances. Indeed, some Alaska Plan carriers have committed to
speeds higher than 10/1 Mbps, including 100/5 Mbps and 1GB/100Mbps.
Similarly, carriers receiving A-CAM support were obligated to provide
service at speeds of 25/3 Mbps, 10/1 Mbps or \4/1\ Mbps depending on
the housing unit density of the eligible areas in the offer. Recently,
the Commission adopted a speed requirement of 100/20 Mbps for E-ACAM
recipients.
32. A recent interested party explained that requiring 10/1 Mbps
has been detrimental in areas that could benefit from support to
improve their networks but still may not be able to reach 10/1 Mbps.
Others suggest the minimum speed requirements should be higher to
encourage more advanced services. The Infrastructure Act requires that
its programs establish a minimum speed of 100/20 Mbps. The Commission
seeks comment on what the appropriate minimum broadband speed
requirement should be for the Alaska Connect Fund. What factors should
the Commission consider to determine a minimum broadband speed
requirement? Should the Commission allow exceptions to the minimum
speed requirement, and if so, under what conditions? In light of new
technologies, such as low Earth orbit satellites, are exceptions to the
speed and latency requirements necessary?
33. Latency. The Alaska Plan, ACS, and A-CAM recipients are all
currently subject to requirements to provide and certify the provision
of service with roundtrip network latency of 100 milliseconds or less,
subject to middle mile limitations. Under Commission rules, this
requires recipients to certify to offering ``voice and broadband
service with latency suitable for real-time applications . . . .'' The
Commission seeks comment on whether this requirement remains
appropriate for the Alaska Connect Fund or whether modifications may be
warranted.
34. Data Usage. Participants in the Alaska Plan are required to
provide a usage allowance that evolves over time to remain reasonably
comparable to usage by subscribers in urban areas, similar to the
approach adopted for price cap carriers and other rate-of-return
carriers. ACS was allowed some flexibility to ``offer a usage allowance
consistent with the usage level of 80 percent of its own broadband
subscribers, including those subscribers that live outside of Phase II-
funded areas,'' although it does not offer plans with usage limits. The
Commission seeks comment on the minimum data allowance requirement and
whether it needs to tailor it in light of changes to the network due to
availability in access to middle-mile.
35. Satellite Backhaul Exception. The Commission exempts from the
speed, latency, and data usage standards (public interest obligations)
those areas in which carriers rely exclusively on the use of satellite
backhaul to deliver service. The Commission made this decision based on
reports from the Regulatory Commission of Alaska that there are areas
of Alaska that can only be served by satellite, and the assertions that
satellite backhaul is limited in its functionality compared with
terrestrial backhaul. Indeed, carriers seeking the exemption must
certify that they lack the ability to obtain terrestrial backhaul and
that they are unable to satisfy the broadband public interest
obligations due to the limited functionality of satellite backhaul.
More recently, satellite companies have insisted that their services
are fast, reliable, and affordable. The Commission recognizes that
there are remote areas of Alaska where satellite service may be the
only solution for voice and broadband, and it seeks information and
data on satellite service speed and reliability. Should the Commission
adjust the benchmarks to account for advancements and availability in
satellite backhaul technology? Alternatively, should the Commission
establish benchmarks for carriers serving locations with satellite and
microwave middle-mile facilities in the Alaska Connect Fund?
36. Affordability Requirement. The Commission seeks comment on
requiring the offering of a low-cost plan as a condition of receiving
Alaska Connect Fund support. The Commission proposes to condition
Alaska Connect Fund support on participation in the Affordable
Connectivity Program (ACP) or substantially similar successor program.
The Commission recently adopted a similar requirement for Enhanced A-
CAM Order recipients, and affordability remains a considerable barrier
for many Alaskan residents in gaining and broadband access. The ACP
plays an important role in helping low-income consumers obtain
affordable internet services. There are currently a number of carriers
participating in the ACP that serve Alaska. Would the same requirement
be appropriate for all or some of the recipients of the Alaska Connect
Fund? Additionally, the Commission notes that beyond it, the
Infrastructure Act requires subgrantees of the BEAD program to provide
at least one ``low-cost broadband service option.''
37. Cybersecurity and Supply Chain Risk Requirements. The
Commission proposes to condition the receipt of Alaska Connect Fund
support on the creation, implementation and maintenance of operational
cybersecurity and supply chain risk management plans. Specifically, the
Commission proposes that Alaska Connect Fund support recipients be
required to implement a cybersecurity risk management plan that
reflects the latest version of the National Institutes of Standards and
Technology (NIST) Framework for Improving Critical Infrastructure
Cybersecurity, and that reflects an established set of cybersecurity
best practices, such as the standards and controls set forth in the
Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) Cybersecurity
Cross-sector Performance Goals and Objectives or the Center for
internet Security Critical Security (CIS) Controls. The Commission also
proposes that carriers be required to implement supply chain risk
management plans that incorporate the key practices discussed in NISTIR
8276, Key Practices in Cyber Supply
[[Page 80244]]
Chain Risk Management Observations from Industry, and related supply
chain risk management guidance from NIST 800-161. Would it be
appropriate for Alaska Connect Fund recipients to submit to USAC their
updated cybersecurity and supply chain risk management plans within 30
days of making a substantive modification thereto, as E-ACAM recipients
must? In the Enhanced A-CAM Order, the Commission adopted these
requirements for recipients of E-ACAM support, making conforming plans
due by the start of the support term and imposing a reduction in
monthly support of 25% for non-compliance. The Commission seeks comment
on adopting the same requirements for Alaska Connect Fund recipients.
Do Alaska carriers have such plans already created and implemented? Is
the same non-compliance withholding of 25% appropriate for Alaska
Connect Fund recipients? What are the differences (if any) between
Alaska Connect Fund recipients and E-ACAM recipients that might warrant
different approaches to ensuring cybersecurity? Are there other
security standards or flexibilities the Commission should consider for
Alaska Connect Fund recipients?
38. Reasonably Comparable Rates--Broadband and Voice. The
Commission proposes that carriers receiving Alaska Connect Fund
support, like all other recipients of USF high-cost program support,
will be required provide voice and broadband service at rates that are
reasonably comparable to those offered in urban areas. For broadband,
an ETC has two options for demonstrating that its rates comply with
this statutory requirement: certifying compliance with reasonable
comparability benchmarks or certifying that it offers the same or lower
rates in rural areas as it does in urban areas. Due to the unique
challenges that remain in Alaska, the Commission proposes that carriers
receiving Alaska Connect Fund support will still be subject to the
Alaska-specific reasonable comparability broadband benchmarks
established by the Bureau. The Commission seeks comment on whether it
should revise how the Alaska-specific comparability benchmarks are
calculated. How will support amounts affect carriers' ability to meet
the Commission's broadband rate benchmarks?
39. For voice service, ETCs are required to make an annual
certification that the rates for their voice service are in compliance
with the same reasonable comparability benchmark as required for the
other programs. The current benchmark for voice services is $59.62
nationwide. While the Commission has seen no evidence that carriers are
unable to comply with the voice benchmarks, it seeks comment on whether
its voice benchmark calculations are still appropriate for Alaska? Does
the Commission need to create an Alaska-specific voice benchmark?
40. Earlier this year, the Bureau sought comment on modifying the
calculation method for determining broadband benchmarks and on other
changes related to the benchmarks. Are these inquiries also applicable
to the Commission's considerations for the Alaska-specific benchmarks?
In the 2023 Broadband Benchmarks Public Notice, the Bureau stated that
``[i]n addition to an increasing range of speeds, in the last few years
the Bureau has also noted that Survey data show that some variables,
such as upload speed and capacity allowances, have become less relevant
to setting benchmark rates. For example, in some cases, the Commission
has found that inclusion of upload speed in rate calculations can
result in anomalies where the benchmark rate rises as upload speed
falls, likely because download speed is more significant to price
levels. In addition, in some instances the Commission has found that
capacity allowances have little to no effect on the benchmark rate.''
Does Alaska experience the same anomalies and impact related to upload
speed and capacity allowances? Is there similar confusion in Alaska
regarding discounted and non-discounted pricing? Should the Commission
consider similar definitional updates related to census data? The
Commission seeks comment on whether there are any challenges for
current Alaska A-CAM carriers in meeting the Alaska-specific benchmark
should they be allowed to become Alaska Connect Fund recipients.
41. Deployment Milestones. The Commission seeks comment on what the
deployment milestones should be for the Alaska Connect Fund. In the
Alaska Plan, carriers were required to meet only two specific
milestones; one by the end of the fifth year of support year and then
by the end of the final year and report their progress annually. This
was done to provide flexibility for planning based on the shortened
construction season and the carrier-submitted performance plans
identifying the location obligation. How does the term of support
impact the interval of required milestones, e.g. should an intermediate
milestone be required if the Commission adopts a support term of
something less than ten years, and should more intermediate milestones
be set if it adopts a support term of more than ten years? Are there
other factors to consider in establishing deployment milestones, both
intermediate and final?
42. The Commission seeks comment on a support term for the Alaska
Connect Fund. The Alaska Plan and ACS CAF II commitments, along with
several other high-cost programs, have previously established ten-year
support terms that require mid-point evaluations and milestone
achievements. The ATA Petition asks the Commission to cut the original
Alaska Plan program short and start the Alaska Connect Fund in 2024
rather than at the end of 2026, when the Alaska Plan term is over. It
also asks for the Alaska Connect Fund to run through 2034, and for that
term to extend at one-year intervals thereafter absent some other
decision by the Commission. The AMMES plan proposes an eight-year term
of support, but support amounts are reduced after year four. Given the
life expectancy of current technology, the rate of technological
advancement, and the changing landscape of competition in Alaska, the
Commission seeks comment on the appropriate support term for the Alaska
Connect Fund. Does addressing high-cost support in Alaska more
frequently allow the Commission to more precisely address competition
and changes in the marketplace? Would a shorter support term improve
planning and deployment? What impact does the shortened construction
season have in considering a shorter term of support? Alternatively,
would a longer support term allow Alaska providers to better plan for
network deployments and upgrades? What impact do supply chain and labor
shortage challenges have in considering the length of the term of
support?
43. Given that Alaska, like other states, is still in the planning
phase for BEAD funding, the Commission seeks comment on when it should
begin the Alaska Connect Fund support program. Would it be more prudent
for us to wait to move forward with the Alaska Connect Fund until the
conclusion of BEAD planning and the planning for other projects are
complete, in order to better coordinate the Alaska Connect Fund with
other Federal programs? Would waiting impact the ability of Alaska
carriers to pursue BEAD funding and the resources necessary to support
BEAD-funded projects? If it does, how so? The Commission seeks comment
on measures to avoid duplicative support if the Commission does not
wait to initiate the Alaska Connect Fund. In what ways can Alaska
Connect Fund support complement BEAD funding?
[[Page 80245]]
44. The Commission relies on mandatory deployment, reporting, and
testing requirements and oversight rules to reduce waste, fraud, and
abuse of program support and to ensure that carriers are meeting their
commitments to provide high-quality broadband services. As the
Commission did with the Alaska Plan, it proposes to establish
reporting, performance testing, document retention, and oversight
requirements for the Alaska Connect Fund recipients. The Commission
proposes to maintain the existing framework for potential reductions in
support for failure to meet any of the Alaska Connect Fund obligations.
Furthermore, as for all ETCs, the Commission proposes that all Alaska
Connect Fund recipients will be subject to compliance audits and other
investigations and enforcement measures as necessary. The Commission
seeks comment on these proposals.
45. The Commission seeks comment on any reporting, performance
testing, or accountability issues in the Alaska Plan that need to be
refined for the Alaska Connect Fund. Should the Alaska Connect Fund
require new accountability or oversight procedures, and if so, what
should those look like? Should the Commission require monitoring and
reassessment in the Alaska Connect Fund as it has in the Tribal Nations
and Tribal Lands in Alaska.
46. The Commission is committed to working with Tribes and Tribal
leaders. The Commission seeks comment generally on considerations
necessary for including Tribal governments, Tribal Nations, Tribal
lands, and residents of Tribal Lands in the Alaska Connect Fund. What
progress has been made with NTIA's Tribal Broadband Connectivity
Program and other Tribal broadband program support received in Alaska?
How has that changed who is providing service to the communities? Are
the services being provided on Tribal Lands affordable for residents?
Is there any need to revisit the definition of Tribal lands in Alaska--
are there Tribal Nations, Tribal lands or Tribal entities in Alaska
that do not fit into the current definition but should be included for
the purpose of the Alaska Connect Fund?
47. The Commission recently discussed with Tribal Nations in Alaska
and their representatives issues related to obtaining ETC status for
purposes of receiving high-cost and Alaska Plan program support. The
Commission allows carriers serving Tribal lands to seek ETC status
directly from the Commission in certain situations. The Commission
seeks comment on whether there are still barriers for Tribal Nations in
Alaska in obtaining ETC status. How can the Commission streamline the
ETC process or other processes to increase Tribal Nation access to
Alaska Connect Fund support?
48. Recognizing that engagement between Tribal Nations and service
providers ``is vitally important to the successful deployment and
provision of service,'' the Commission implemented an annual obligation
that requires carriers to demonstrate that they have meaningfully
engaged Tribal governments in their supported areas. The Commission
seeks comment on the experience of Tribal Nations and Tribal
governments and providers in Alaska with the Commission's Tribal
engagement requirement. Has this obligation led to the successful
deployment and provision of service on Tribal lands in Alaska? The
Commission invites comment on whether the its Tribal engagement
requirements in Alaska need to be strengthened. How can the Commission
help ensure that service providers meet their existing Tribal
engagement requirement in Alaska? How can the Commission better
encourage the participation of Tribal governments in decisions
regarding deployment of service on their lands. Are there unique
considerations regarding engagement with Tribal governments in Alaska
that the Commission should take into account? The Commission seeks
comment on the potential consequences of failing to meet this
requirement and whether those outcomes have been sufficient to ensure
that service providers meet the Tribal engagement requirement in Alaska
? Should the receipt of Alaska Connect Fund support be conditioned on
obtaining Tribal consent to provide broadband service for carriers
serving Tribal Nations and Tribal Lands in Alaska? Or should the
Commission adopt a Tribal consent framework similar to the BEAD
program? Is there another framework that could better benefit the
Tribal Nations, Tribal Lands, and Tribal residents of Alaska?
49. As previously discussed, carriers are receiving high-cost
support for Alaska through several different mechanisms, and the term
for each is set to conclude in a different year: Alaska Plan support
and A-CAM I will end in 2026, ACS CAF II frozen support will end at the
end of December 2025. Historically, where a carrier's support term has
ended before the next phase of support begins, the Commission has
approved an extension of support to bridge this gap. For example,
recently the Commission approved transitional support for mobile
wireless service in Puerto Rico and USVI. The support term begins the
month after a carrier's final program disbursement and is there to
bridge the gap until the Commission adopts a long-term support
mechanism. If the Alaska Connect Fund begins in 2027, ACS will have at
least a year of gap between its last disbursement and the initiation of
the Alaska Connect Fund disbursements. If Alaska Connect Fund support
has not been established by 2027, there will be a gap in disbursements
for Alaska Plan participants as well. The Commission seeks comment on
whether and how it continues to provide support so that carriers do not
experience a gap in support before the start of the Alaska Connect
Fund. How does Alaska's shortened construction season impact the timing
and length of providing transitional support?
50. In addition, the Commission has phased down support for
providers when changes in the program result in changes in support. For
example, the Commission established a phase down period for ILEC fixed
support carriers receiving high-cost support in Puerto Rico following
the competitive process. The Commission seeks comment on phasing down
support for the ILEC in any areas in which it is not authorized to
receive Alaska Connect Fund support.
51. Alaska Connect Fund for Mobile Wireless Carriers. The mobile
wireless portion of the Alaska Plan--like the fixed portion--is
scheduled to end on December 31, 2026. While progress has been made
toward mobile deployment to remote areas in Alaska in the first half of
the Alaska Plan, the Commission notes that much still needs to be done
to ensure that Alaskans in remote areas have access to reliable,
advanced mobile service, as more than 70,000 Alaskans in eligible
Alaska Plan areas are still without at least 4G LTE at \5/1\ Mbps. In
the document, the Commission seeks comment on what the Alaska Connect
Fund should look like for mobile service providers. As the Commission
considers how to address the realities of mobile deployment in Alaska,
as well as the changes that have occurred since the original Alaska
Plan was adopted, the Commission draws on its experience from the
existing Alaska Plan for mobile support, as well as the submissions and
comments of stakeholders.
52. The Commission has previously recognized that Alaska is unique
and that mobility support mechanisms in Alaska need to be flexible
enough to account for Alaska's ``remoteness, lack of roads, challenges
and costs associated with transporting fuel, lack of scalability per
community, satellite and backhaul
[[Page 80246]]
availability, extreme weather conditions, challenging topography, and
short construction season.'' The mobile portion of the Alaska Plan aims
to provide Alaskans in remote areas with advanced mobile communications
services at rates that are reasonably comparable to those in urban
areas. Based on data from FCC Form 477 filings, the 2016 Alaska Plan
increased the number of Alaskans served with 4G LTE from 33,133 to
85,865, out of 149,610 Alaskans in eligible areas. According to data
from the BDC, 79,340 Alaskans in eligible areas were served by \5/1\
Mbps 4G LTE as of December 31, 2022. The Commission seeks comment on
what actions it should take to ensure that Alaskans in remote areas,
particularly unserved and underserved areas, can access and continue to
receive reliable and secure mobile service at reasonable prices.
53. The Commission seeks comment on whether the Alaska Plan's
frozen support continues to be the right mechanism to address concerns
with mobile service in Alaska going forward, or whether other types of
programs or subsidies would be better suited to address concerns. The
Commission notes that several mobile providers have exhibited varying
levels of noncompliance with their interim commitments in the Alaska
Plan. Examples of noncompliance include insufficient buildout to meet
commitments to Alaskans; inaccurate data filings; failure to
demonstrate rates and services that are reasonably comparable with
Anchorage; and failure to update performance plans as required. In
light of this, how can the Commission better ensure that high-cost
support in Alaska is helping to bring advanced mobile communications
services to remote areas in the state? The Commission seeks comment on
all matters related to the next version of the Alaska Plan,
particularly the ways in which the original Alaska Plan could be
improved upon to deliver more reliable and secure mobile service, as
well as how the Alaska Connect Fund should account for other support
mechanisms or funding programs in Alaska.
54. The Commission seeks comment on how to determine eligible areas
and services for the mobile portion of the Alaska Connect Fund. An area
had to satisfy two criteria to be considered an eligible area for
mobile services under the 2016 Alaska Plan Order. First, it had to be a
``remote area[] in Alaska,'' which the Commission defined as all of
Alaska except most of Anchorage, Juneau, Fairbanks, Chugiak, and Eagle
River. Second, eligible areas ``include[d] only those census blocks
where, as of December 31, 2014, less than 85% of the population was
covered by the 4G LTE service of providers that [were] either currently
unsubsidized by the high-cost mechanism or subject to a phase down of
all current mobile support in the relevant cell block.''
55. The Commission seeks comment on how to define eligible areas
for the next version of the plan. What, if any, changes should the
Commission make to the eligible areas criteria that the Commission used
in the 2016 Alaska Plan Order? Under the BDC, the Commission displays
mobile coverage availability data based on both stationary/pedestrian
coverage and in-vehicle coverage. Which coverage data should the
Commission use to determine the eligible areas for the Alaska Connect
Fund?
56. As an initial matter for determining eligible areas, the
Commission seeks comment on how to define a base geographic unit for
purposes of determining eligible areas. Instead of census blocks, which
were used in the Alaska Plan, the Commission proposes to use the H3
hexagonal geospatial indexing system (H3 system), consistent with the
BDC, to identify the areas eligible for high-cost support similar to
the approach it is considering for the 5G Fund? The Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau (WTB), Office of Economics and Analytics
(OEA), and Office of Engineering and Technology adopted the H3 system
to identify geographic areas where a challenge to a provider's mobile
BDC availability data can be created based on the locations of on-the-
ground challenger speed tests, and the system has been integrated into
the BDC verification process. The H3 system is useful because it
provides a canonical way to reference, index, and compare wireless
coverage using boundaries that are of a nearly uniform size. In
addition, the nested nature of the hexes allows aggregation of like-
sized areas to like-sized areas, unlike scaling up from blocks to block
groups to tracts since these geographic areas can be of widely
divergent sizes. The H3 system is used to divide the National Broadband
Map into specific geographic areas, and the Map shows the percentage of
a hexagon that is ``covered'' (i.e., where a provider has claimed it
can make broadband available) at different resolutions and levels of
granularity as a user zooms in or out on the map. Mobile broadband
coverage is displayed down to the resolution-9 hexagon level (hex-9) on
the map, and data on such coverage is made available for download based
on hex-9s. Because of its nested structure, using the H3 system allows
the Commission to categorize geographic areas at multiple levels of
granularity.
57. If the Commission were to use hexagons as the base geographic
unit to identify the areas eligible for high-cost support, it seeks
comment on which hexagonal resolution level--e.g., hex-8, hex-9--in the
H3 hierarchy should be used. Should the Commission determine the
eligible areas based on the H3 hexagonal units, specifically as
hexagons at resolution 9? Hex-9s are nearly uniform and standardized
and can be clearly identified and referenced. Because hex-9s are
relatively small, with an average area of approximately 0.1 square
kilometer, any reduction in map resolution when converting from raw
propagation model output (as filed by providers) to hex-9s is minimal.
Hex-9s can be aggregated when focusing on an area, such as all of the
hex-9s that overlap a census geography. However, the small size of a
hex-9 could also lead to an increase in administrative burden, as it
takes more of them for a full assessment of an area, given their small
size. The Commission seeks comment on using the hex-9 and hex-8
resolutions, as the basis for identifying specific geographic areas
that are eligible for high-cost support under the Alaska Connect Fund.
In the 5G Fund Further Notice, 88 FR 66781, September 28, 2023, the
Commission proposed that the eligible area would be smaller than a
census tract and larger than a census block group, and it could
aggregate hex-9s that overlap any desired census boundary. Given that
some census blocks are very large in Alaska, would a combination of
census blocks and hex-9s that contain locations indicated by the Fabric
and road segments be more suitable for Alaska? Would hex-9s be too
small for this purpose in Alaska, and if so, why and what size hexagon
should be used?
58. The Commission seeks comment on how to define remote areas for
the Alaska Connect Fund. Under the Alaska Plan, eligible areas were
limited to remote areas of Alaska. The definition of `` `remote areas
in Alaska' includes all of Alaska except: (A) the ACS-Anchorage
incumbent study area; (B) the ACS-Juneau incumbent study area; (C) the
fairbankszone1 disaggregation zone in the ACS-Fairbanks incumbent study
area; and (D) the Chugiak 1 and 2 and Eagle River 1 and 2
disaggregation zones of the Matanuska Telephone Association incumbent
study area.'' Should the Commission still use the definition of
``remote areas in Alaska'' as defined in Sec. 54.307(e)(3)(i) of its
rules? If not, what changes should the Commission make to the
definition for the purposes of the Alaska Connect
[[Page 80247]]
Fund? For example, should the Commission publish a list of ineligible
hex-9s and make that the operative definition of nonremote areas in
Alaska? The Commission seeks comment on this approach as well as other
approaches in how best to define eligible areas.
59. The Commission also seeks comment on what, if any, changes it
should make to the requirement in the Alaska Plan that to be eligible,
a remote census block needed to have less than 85% of the population
covered by the 4G LTE service of providers that were either
unsubsidized or not eligible for frozen support in Alaska as of
December 31, 2014. Under the Alaska Connect Fund, should areas be re-
evaluated for eligibility based on coverage by an unsubsidized provider
or a provider that is deemed ineligible to participate in the plan? If
the Commission were to use hex-9s as the base geographic unit for
defining eligible areas, should it aggregate the hex-9s to a larger
geographic area and then measure the percentage of that area that lacks
covered hex-9s? If so, which larger geographic area should be used to
aggregate hex-9s to determine eligibility? Should a larger-resolution
H3 hexagon, such as a ``parent'' hex-8 or hex-7, or a larger Census-
defined boundary such as a census block, block group, or tract be used?
Further, what should that percentage be? For example, should census
blocks that have 85% or greater coverage of hex-9s with 4G LTE or
better coverage by an unsubsidized or ineligible provider, based on the
latest BDC coverage data, be excluded from eligibility in the next
version of the plan? Alternatively, if less than 85% of a hex-8 or hex-
7 lacks unsubsidized 4G or better coverage based on the hex-9s within
it, should that hex-8 or hex-7 geographic unit be considered eligible?
If a boundary other than a larger ``parent'' hexagon is used to
aggregate hex-9s, the Commission will need to determine how to assign
and aggregate hex-9s to the larger boundary. Should the Commission
analyze whether the centroid, or a particular areas percentage, of the
hex-9 falls within the other boundary? If an unsubsidized or ineligible
mobile provider is offering 4G LTE or 5G-NR service in a geographic
area based on BDC data where another provider is receiving universal
service support, should the Commission continue to provide universal
service support in those geographic areas? Should areas with multiple
providers, even if both are subsidized, be eligible? In the 5G Fund
Further Notice, the Commission proposed making ineligible those areas
served with 5G-NR at speeds of at least 7/1 Mbps by an unsubsidized
provider. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal for the Alaska
Connect Fund.
60. Middle Mile. The Commission seeks comment on ways to improve
access to middle mile for mobile providers in the next version of the
plan. The 2016 Alaska Plan Order created three solutions to address the
limitations presented by scarce middle mile in Alaska. First, the 2016
Alaska Plan Order explicitly clarified that frozen support may be used
to build and upgrade middle mile, even outside of the eligible areas,
when needed to meet commitments within the eligible areas. Second, to
better understand the extent of middle mile scarcity, the 2016 Alaska
Plan Order required all Alaska Plan participants to file maps of their
fiber and microwave networks and update these maps if they deployed
middle mile in the previous calendar year, with a format for these maps
to be decided by the Bureaus. Third, as this was a ten-year plan, if a
provider did not commit to provide 4G LTE at 10/1 Mbps to an area and
new middle-mile services became commercially available to that area,
the provider needed to submit a new performance plan incorporating the
new middle mile. Moreover, several providers throughout the course of
the Alaska Plan have noted that middle-mile transport can be
prohibitively expensive when paying a third-party, especially in areas
where there is little or no comparable competitive providers.
61. The Commission seeks comment on how to address middle mile
concerns for mobile providers in an Alaska Connect Fund. Based on the
fiber and microwave network maps and middle mile updates that the
original eight mobile providers submitted, it appears that several of
the mobile-provider participants could reach areas with multiple
transport providers--which are areas most likely to offer transport at
competitive prices--but mobile-provider participants either need to add
microwave towers or fiber to reach those areas or to link up their own
network so that all of their service areas can benefit from the areas
with multiple transport providers. For such situations, how can the
Commission best proceed in the next version of the plan to ensure that
mobile provider service areas are connected to areas with multiple
transport providers? The Alaska Plan explicitly allows funds to be
spent on building out middle mile, but should the Commission set aside
funds, as part of the Alaska Connect Fund, to cover capital costs of
middle mile that can have an outsized impact on the last-mile service
to an area? If so, how should the Commission make such a determination?
Do additional conversations need to occur with individual mobile
providers so that a plan is tailored for them to build the necessary
infrastructure to reach areas with multiple transport providers?
62. In an Alaska Connect Fund, should the Commission dedicate some
portion of support to middle mile buildout? If so, how should the
Commission allocate such support, and where should that funding come
from? The Commission seeks comment, for example, on whether some
portion of the $162 million being allocated for unserved areas could be
used to support middle mile buildout. If so, how should the Commission
allocate those funds? For example, could some portion of the $162
million be reallocated to a fund dedicated to ensuring middle mile is
being constructed to areas with multiple transport providers or
internet gateways, where a last-mile provider's traffic would have
transport pricing subject to more competitive pressures? If the
Commission were to reallocate a portion of the $162 million fund, how
could this reallocation occur so as to still serve those 5,000 unserved
Alaskans who were to benefit from that funding? Could some type of
reimbursement program--where a provider submits to the Commission its
costs for constructing infrastructure to areas with lower transport
costs--be included as part of the Alaska Connect Fund? If the
Commission were to make such a fund a part of the Alaska Connect Fund,
how could it do so without interfering with other infrastructure
programs, such as BEAD? What impact will other infrastructure funding
programs, including BEAD, have on mobile providers' access to middle
mile? In its petition, ARCC requests that the $162 million that is
being accumulated for the reverse auction be reallocated to support
operating costs of middle mile transport where transport costs are
above $75 per Mbps. Should such a system that provides additional
support for high-cost transport be integrated into the Alaska Connect
Fund? If so, how could the Commission implement such a system without
creating undesirable incentives for providers to incur higher transport
costs in order to trigger receipt of this particular universal service
support (i.e., how could it encourage carriers to seek the lowest cost,
most-efficient middle mile access under ARCC's proposal)? In
particular, how would such a system impact mobile service in Alaska,
and are there considerations regarding this issue specifically for
mobile services?
[[Page 80248]]
63. If the Commission does provide funding opportunities
specifically for middle mile construction, what requirements should it
impose on providers that receive such funding? Should providers
receiving support for the construction of middle-mile facilities be
required to share capacity with other carriers on certain terms and
conditions, and if so, what should those terms and conditions be?
Should the appropriate standard for offering such middle-mile capacity
be just and reasonable, commercially available, or something else?
Should providers receiving support for the construction of middle-mile
facilities be required to commit to not raising rivals' costs or
charging monopoly prices? What wholesale and nondiscrimination
requirements should apply to providers receiving middle mile funding?
What sort of evidence should be provided to demonstrate noncompliance
with such conditions, and what kinds of penalties should incur where
noncompliance is found? For example, if an Alaska Connect Fund provider
is charging lower transport rates in areas with multiple transport
providers than areas where it has an effective monopoly, can it have
its last-mile support withheld until it lowers its middle-mile rates?
Could there be some other form of cap on transport prices by Alaska
Connect Fund participants?
64. The Commission also seeks comment on the best approach for
determining whether the availability of new middle mile service should
result in changes to Alaska Connect Fund mobile providers' performance
plans. Should the Commission conclude that middle mile is not
commercially available if the Alaska Connect Fund participant must pay
a particular price per Mbps? If so, what price per Mbps makes middle-
mile effectively not commercially available to mobile-provider
participants so that they could not provide rates and services that are
reasonably comparable to urban areas, such as Anchorage? If new middle
mile becomes available, but an Alaska mobile provider claims it is too
expensive to be commercially available, should the Commission adopt a
process whereby WTB provides notice to the mobile provider on whether
it is required to submit a new performance plan after reviewing the
costs and terms associated with the new middle mile service? Should
providers that are providing fixed services at speeds above their
mobile services commitments be deemed to have sufficient middle mile
available to it or are there reasons to believe that middle mile is
constrained for the mobile provider, even if its wireline affiliate is
meeting its commitments in an area?
65. Has the evolution of satellite networks and hybrid satellite-
terrestrial networks restrained middle mile prices at sufficient
service quality levels that can be integrated into considerations of
middle mile being commercially available to an area? The Commission
seeks comment more broadly on how the evolution of satellites,
particularly the hybrid satellite-terrestrial networks, would impact
services offered under the Alaska Connect Fund.
66. Areas Receiving Duplicative Support. The Commission has sought
to eliminate duplicative support--the provision of support to more than
one competitive ETC in the same area--in the high-cost program. To
address the potential for duplicative support over time in the Alaska
Plan, the Commission indicated that it would implement a process in the
second half of the Plan to eliminate such support in areas where Alaska
Plan support was going to two or more subsidized 4G LTE providers as of
December 31, 2020, as reflected in the March 31, 2021 FCC Form 477
data. The 2016 Alaska Plan Order also included a Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking to address the logistics of how to handle
situations where the Commission addresses areas receiving duplicative
support with 4G LTE under the Alaska Plan.
67. It is generally not the policy of the USF to subsidize
competition. Under the Alaska Plan, however, in some areas as many as
three mobile-provider participants are receiving support and serving
the same eligible area. In a filing before its petition for rulemaking,
ATA indicated that the Commission should not address duplication before
BDC data became available. In a more recent filing, ATA indicated that
reducing support would threaten the financial stability of carriers and
impact their ability to meet their commitments. How should the
Commission address situations where two or more prospective
participants of the Alaska Connect Fund cover the same geographic area?
Now that BDC data are available for use, what is the best way to
determine which areas are receiving duplicative support? For example,
would requiring a provider's performance plan to specify each hex-9
that it is serving help to identify duplication?
68. Should the Commission continue to provide universal service
support to two or more providers in the same geographic area? If there
are multiple subsidized providers serving the same area, should the
Commission allow only one subsidized provider to continue receiving
support in that area? Should the level of service being provided be a
factor in determining the approach? For example, if two providers are
offering 2G or one is offering 2G and another 3G, should that be
treated differently than if two providers are offering 4G LTE?
Alternatively, does the fact that multiple providers are covering the
same area indicate that the area should be deemed ineligible for
support? If an unsubsidized provider enters an area for which another
provider is receiving support under the Alaska Connect Fund, should
that provider continue to receive support for that area?
69. In areas where multiple subsidized providers serve the same
area, would a reverse auction be the most appropriate method to
determine which provider should receive the funding for those areas and
how much funding should be awarded? If the Commission were to
distribute future funding consistent with a reverse auction format or
other competitive allocation mechanism, would that be sufficient to
address concerns about duplicative support going to an area? For
example, could an area-specific reverse auction determine the provider
that is willing to meet the public interest requirements for the area
at the lowest cost? If the Commission were to address duplicative
support via a reverse auction, what barriers to auction participation,
if any, would smaller providers face? What actions could the Commission
take to reduce those barriers, and what would the costs and benefits of
doing so be? For example, should the Commission offer bidding credits
to smaller providers that seek to compete in such an auction?
Alternatively, would a competitive process similar to the Bringing
Puerto Rico Together and the Connect USVI programs be an appropriate
mechanism for determining which mobile providers in Alaska receive
support? The Commission seeks comment on the evaluation criteria
consistent with this approach that would best determine which provider
should receive support.
70. If the Commission does not use a reverse-auction or competitive
process format, how can the Commission address duplicative support
going forward in Alaska? If the Alaska Connect Fund continues under a
similar structure as the Alaska Plan, could the Commission prevent
duplicative support at the front end by simply not awarding support to
more than one mobile carrier per eligible area? For example, should the
Commission immediately redistribute support where there are multiple
mobile providers
[[Page 80249]]
serving the same area? If so, how would the Commission determine which
provider should continue receiving support if it does not use a reverse
auction?
71. How should the Commission redistribute the duplicative funds
that were going to such areas? Could this redistribution be done by
calculating the support that eligible providers are receiving per
hexagon across all of that provider's service areas and subtracting the
support that the provider receives per hexagon in a particular service
area? Should this redistributed funding go into a middle-mile fund,
unserved-areas fund, or something else? Alternatively, where such
duplication is found, should the Commission allow the providers that
would no longer receive support for that particular area to submit new
hex-9s (where there is no duplication), in order to retain the same
level of support? The Commission seeks comment on how to address
duplicative support in remote Alaska, as well as ATA's concerns with
addressing any such duplication.
72. Eligibility to participate in the Alaska Plan was limited to
competitive ETCs that were serving remote areas in Alaska and certified
that they served covered locations in remote areas in Alaska in their
September 30, 2011 filing of line counts. Eligible providers interested
in participating in the Alaska Plan were required to submit a
performance plan and to have that performance plan approved by WTB. The
Commission seeks comment on how to determine mobile provider
eligibility for the next version of the plan. Should the Commission
limit potential participants to the eight mobile providers that
participate in the Alaska Plan? Should the Commission determine
eligibility using the same criteria as before or apply different
criteria?
73. The Alaska Plan provided a one-time option for eligible
carriers to elect to participate and barred the participation of any
entrants after that point. This structure did not allow for new
entrants to receive support, even if they fulfilled needs in eligible
areas consistent with the deployment standard of the Alaska Plan. The
Bringing Puerto Rico Together and Connect USVI Funds had similar
structures for support in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands,
respectively. What lessons can be learned from these plans about not
allowing new entrants to opt-in during the term of support? If the
Commission relies on performance plans in the Alaska Connect Fund,
could the Commission accept later entrants after the plan has
initiated? Should the Commission use the same structure for determining
the participants in the Alaska Connect Fund? Or, should the Commission
allow new entrants to opt-in during the term? How can the Commission
ensure that new mobile providers in Alaska, including those that are
not ETCs or other potential entrants that are not eligible for the
Alaska Connect Fund, are not disadvantaged or discouraged from offering
improved mobile services in an eligible area due to the existence of
the Alaska Connect Fund support?
74. As mentioned in this document, some providers failed to meet
their five-year commitments under the Alaska Plan. Should the
Commission limit a mobile-provider participant's eligibility to
participate in the next version of the plan if it failed to meet its
commitments above a certain percentage at the Alaska Plan's interim or
final milestone? If so, what should that non-compliance threshold be?
Alternatively, should the Commission make full compliance with interim
commitments of the Alaska Plan a prerequisite for a current
participant's eligibility to participate in the Alaska Connect Fund?
Likewise, should the Commission limit a mobile provider's eligibility
if it failed to comply with the public interest obligations under the
plan, such as the requirement to offer a similar plan, at a reasonably
comparable rate, to one offered in Anchorage, Alaska?
75. The Commission seeks comment on how it should allocate support
among the participants of the Alaska Connect Fund. For mobile services,
$739 million of frozen support was allocated to eight mobile providers
over the ten-year period of the Alaska Plan. ATA requests that the
Commission continue the current support that its members are receiving,
adjusted for inflation. The Commission seeks comment on that approach.
The support amounts for the Alaska Plan were set by freezing the
``identical support'' amounts, which were originally based on wireline
costs, not mobile costs. As part of universal service reform in 2011,
the Commission eliminated the identical support rule because this rule
did not ensure efficient levels of funding for wireless carriers.
Although the Commission intended to phase down the identical support in
Alaska as well, the Commission, in order to avoid a flash cut in
support to areas serving remote Alaska, including Alaska Native
villages, allowed a delayed phase down of identical support in remote
areas of Alaska, which was to begin in 2014 or upon the implementation
of Mobility Fund Phase II and Tribal Mobility Fund Phase II, whichever
was later.
76. In 2014, as Mobility Fund Phase II was still being developed,
the Commission sought comment on the possibility of freezing Alaskan
competitive ETCs' phase down support and asked whether remote areas in
Alaska should be subject to exceptions or other conditions for phase
down in frozen support. ATA responded by proposing a plan, which would
retain its members' respective support frozen at identical-support
levels, but members would commit to ``operate, extend, and upgrade
existing broadband networks and operate and deploy wireless service in
remote Alaska.'' Support previously going to nonremote areas of Alaska
would be reallocated to a reverse auction fund that would target
unserved areas. The Commission adopted ATA's plan for mobile support in
Alaska, with some modification, and continued the support levels that
were frozen from the identical support rule. The Commission seeks
comment on how these frozen support amounts, set over a decade ago, are
relevant to mobile service in Alaska today. Are there other ways to
allocate funding support in a more prudent and efficient way? Would a
reverse auction format, which is to be used in the Alaska unserved
areas and the 5G Fund, work for all eligible areas of the Alaska
Connect Fund? Are there other methods for competitively allocating
support?
77. As the Commission has reformed the high-cost program, it has
aimed to base support amounts on a forward-looking cost model or a
competitive process. The Commission seeks comment on using these
mechanisms going forward for mobile support in eligible areas of
Alaska. Under the current funding structure, one provider receives $56
per committed-to person per year while another provider receives over
$1,500 per committed-to person per year. This vast difference in ranges
does not seem to accurately reflect current needs or costs of providing
mobile service. Is there a more equitable and/or efficient way to
allocate the funding for the benefit of Alaskans, such as designating a
particular dollar amount per person served, subject to possible
exceptions? If so, should such funding be based on the number of
Alaskans served, adjusted using 2020 census data and the population
distribution model? What, if any, exceptions should apply? Should the
Commission use Fabric data to determine this funding amount? Should a
dollar amount be determined by the number of locations served,
consistent with the BDC Fabric, and hex-9s with road segments? If the
Commission set an
[[Page 80250]]
upper bound on the amount of support that can be received per person or
location committed to, should it redistribute excess funds to those
getting the least amount of money per person/location or use some other
method of support distribution that can better serve Alaskans? How
should the Commission weight population-less hex-9s that have road
segments?
78. The Alaska Plan is a ten-year plan that froze support to the
eight mobile-provider participants specified at the beginning of the
plan. If new entrants are able to join the Alaska Connect Fund after
the plan has begun, what conditions should be met to allow late entry
and from what pool of funds should the Commission consider providing
support to new entrants in the market? Should any future universal
service support allow for additional or alternative competitive ETCs to
receive support?
79. As the Commission considers appropriate support amounts, it
seeks comment generally on an appropriate budget for the Alaska Connect
Fund for mobile service. The Commission seeks comment on how to provide
sufficient support amounts to achieve the goals of encouraging secure
mobile service deployment, while ensuring prudent use of universal
service funds. In what ways should the progress made and challenges
encountered during the Alaska Plan inform the budget for the Alaska
Connect Fund?
80. Unserved Area Funds. When the Commission adopted the 2016
Alaska Plan Order, the Commission collected funds that were previously
going to areas that the Alaska Plan deemed ineligible or to providers
that were deemed ineligible and reallocated those funds to help bring
service to unserved areas. The 2016 Alaska Plan Order defined
``unserved areas'' as ``those census blocks where less than 15% of the
population within the census block was within any mobile carrier's
coverage area.'' Commission staff estimated that, based on 2010 Census
data, these areas contained about 5,000 Alaskans. For these unserved
areas, the Commission planned to conduct a reverse auction to
distribute the reallocated funds, which staff estimates will total $162
million by December 31, 2026.
81. The Commission has not yet created the reverse auction
contemplated in the 2016 Alaska Plan Order to bring service to unserved
areas. To the extent that areas that were unserved in 2016 are now
being served by mobile providers, how can the Commission best bring
service to unserved areas? Should the Commission continue on a path
towards completing a reverse auction using these funds? If not, what
other alternatives could it consider? For example, could a reverse
auction similar to that used by the Commission in the CAF-II and RDOF
auctions be used to determine which areas will receive support given
the budget, and how much support those areas will receive, with support
going to no more than one bidder per area? Would it be problematic if
some of the most costly areas were not to be supported through the
auction? Should the Commission consider a process similar to the
competitive process similar to the Bringing Puerto Rico Together and
the Connect USVI Funds? Does waiting on a reverse auction create an
incentive not to serve these areas out of fear that it would cause a
provider willing to serve that area to lose potential funding? If $162
million is not the appropriate amount of funding to serve these areas,
as it could exceed the per line cap amount, how should the amount be
determined, and if there are unused funds, how should the funds be
redistributed for the benefit of Alaskans?
82. Deployment Standard. In the 2016 Alaska Plan Order, the
Commission stated that it expected that Alaska Plan participants would
work to extend 4G LTE throughout remote Alaska. Recognizing the
limitations in some areas of remote Alaska, however, the Commission
authorized WTB to approve lesser commitments where middle mile was
limited, but where new-generation satellite or terrestrial-based middle
mile became commercially available over the course of the ten-year
Alaska Plan, providers were required to submit new performance plans,
factoring in the new backhaul. In addition, mobile providers that could
not commit to providing 4G LTE at a minimum of 10/1 Mbps were subject
to additional requirements. Since the adoption of the 2016 Alaska Plan
Order, however, the Commission has moved towards supporting 5G-NR as
the standard for high-cost mobile-wireless deployment.
83. The Commission seeks comment on the level of service that it
should expect from mobile providers that receive support under the
Alaska Connect Fund. More than seven years have passed since the
Commission set the standard at 4G LTE at 10/1 Mbps. During this time,
mobile wireless technologies have advanced significantly. What minimum
speeds should the Commission expect mobile participants to achieve,
especially when support may be used to deploy advanced technologies
such as 5G-NR? The Alaska Plan supports 2G, 3G, and 4G LTE. For the
Alaska Connect Fund, should the Commission continue to support 2G and
3G technologies when most consumers in the U.S. are receiving 4G LTE
and 5G services? Should the Commission require a minimum, universal
level of technology of 4G LTE, or should it require 5G-NR? If 5G-NR is
the new standard of deployment, the Commission seeks comment about also
making 7/1 Mbps or 35/3 Mbps the universal standard for the purposes of
the Alaska Connect Fund. If the Commission makes the standard of
deployment less than 5G-NR at 35/3 Mbps or 7/1 Mbps, is it adequately
pursuing the statutory universal service principle that consumers in
rural and high-cost areas ``should have access to'' advanced
communications ``that are reasonably comparable to those services
provided in urban areas''? If the Commission requires a minimum of 4G
LTE at the beginning of the Alaska Connect Fund, should it have a
mechanism to transition to a 5G-NR technology requirement during the
term of the plan? On a related note, if over the course of the Alaska
Connect Fund a new technology generation--i.e., 6G--begins receiving
support from other high-cost programs, should the Alaska Connect Fund
have a mechanism to make that the deployment standard during the plan?
84. Performance Plans. In the Alaska Plan, eligible mobile-provider
participants were required to have a performance plan approved by WTB,
and they were required to update these performance plans periodically.
Participating mobile providers were required to identify in their
performance plans: (1) the types of middle mile used on that carrier's
network; (2) the level of technology (2G, 3G, 4G LTE, etc.) that
carrier provides service at for each type of middle mile used; (3) the
delineated eligible populations served, at each technology level by
each type of middle mile as they stand currently and at years 5 and 10
of the support term; and (4) the minimum download and upload speeds at
each technology level by each type of middle mile as they stood at the
beginning of the plan and at years 5 and 10 of the support term. Alaska
Plan participants that indicated in their approved performance plans
that they were ``rely[ing] exclusively on performance-limiting
satellite backhaul for a certain portion of the population in their
service area'' were required to certify when new backhaul with
``technical characteristics comparable to at least microwave backhaul''
became
[[Page 80251]]
``commercially available.'' Mobile-provider participants that had not
``already committed to providing 4G LTE at 10/1 Mbps to the population
served by the newly available backhaul by the end of the plan term''
were required to submit revised performance plans factoring in the
availability of the new backhaul options when it became commercially
available.
85. Given the complexities involved with the administration of
Alaska Plan funds, should the Commission continue to require each
mobile provider to comply with specific performance obligations under a
provider-specific performance plan with management of such obligations
delegated to WTB? If the Commission retains this approach, what changes
should it adopt to ensure that universal service funds are being used
to provide Alaskans with advanced mobile service and providers are
meeting their build-out obligations? The Commission seeks comment on
what, if any, changes it should make to the performance plan
requirements in the next version of the plan, particularly in light of
technological advances since the 2016 Alaska Plan and changes to how
providers must submit their coverage data to the Commission. Should the
Commission consider adding a latency requirement and, if so, should it
be the same as the latency requirements for fixed carriers of the
Alaska Connect Fund? Should there be a minimum data usage allowance as
part of the deployment standard?
86. The BDC has greatly improved mobile coverage maps, but the BDC
specifications and requirements are significantly different than the
FCC Form 477 coverage maps on which the Alaska Plan commitments were
based. Assuming that the Commission requires provider-specific
performance plans in the Alaska Connect Fund, it seeks comment on what
changes it should make to the performance plan requirements in light of
the BDC specifications and reporting requirements. For example, in the
original Alaska Plan, FCC Form 477 allowed providers the option of
selecting what minimum mobile broadband speeds users could expect to
receive, such as 4/1 Mbps from 4G LTE technology, and the provider
could submit a coverage polygon for 4G LTE at 4/1 Mbps, accordingly.
However, the BDC does not allow 4G LTE coverage polygons to be
submitted at speeds less than 5/1 Mbps. The Commission intends to use
BDC maps in the next version of the plan to the maximum extent
possible. In light of this, the Commission seeks comment on what the
appropriate floor should be for speed commitments, and how it should
capture these data using the BDC. If commitments are set at speeds
higher than the minimum levels required by the BDC (e.g., 5/1 Mbps 4G
LTE; 7/1 Mbps 5G-NR; and 35/3 Mbps 5G-NR), can the Commission require
providers to submit their BDC data at these higher speeds? If
commitments can be set lower than the BDC floor, how should the
Commission capture that data consistent with the Broadband DATA Act's
requirement to base new funding on the BDC?
87. The BDC requires mobile providers to submit mobile availability
coverage maps for both outdoor stationary and in-vehicle mobile
environments. An outdoor stationary environment typically results in a
larger coverage footprint than an in-vehicle mobile environment. Which
maps should the Commission require for creation of performance plans?
Depending on the BDC maps that the Commission chooses to rely on for a
provider's commitments, what impacts would this have on providers'
obligations and the funding that it provides? For example, would the
choice of outdoor stationary environment preclude all in-vehicle mobile
testing?
88. Under the Alaska Plan, mobile providers were permitted to offer
lesser commitments than 10/1 Mbps 4G LTE if they were constrained by
middle mile but were subject to additional requirements. For example,
if new middle mile became commercially available in an area where a
mobile provider committed to provide less than 10/1 Mbps 4G LTE, the
mobile provider had to submit a new performance plan. Under the Alaska
Connect Fund, should the Commission continue to permit lesser
commitments if providers are constrained by middle mile? Have
technological advances, such as the development of new satellite
capacity, particularly low-earth orbital satellites, lessened middle
mile constraints? If the Commission does allow providers to offer
lesser commitments, what information should be provided to demonstrate
that an area is middle-mile constrained? The Alaska Plan required
providers to categorize their performance plan commitments by the
particular type of available middle mile. This categorization ensured
that commitments were commensurate with the middle-mile capability
available. If the Commission forgoes discrete middle-mile technology
rows in the performance plans, should it affect the commitments that
providers would make? If the Commission does not require information
about middle mile technology, are there other ways to address concerns
about providers offering lesser commitments based on middle mile
limitations? For example, could the Commission address concerns about
lesser commitments by imposing requirements similar to the extra
requirements imposed in the 2016 Alaska Plan Order for providers that
commit to less than 10/1 Mbps 4G LTE (e.g., submitting an updated plan
when new middle mile becomes available)? If a provider commits to less
than 35/3 Mbps, should the Commission require the mobile provider to
identify all such areas, based on the chosen base geographical unit,
where it is not committing to 35/3 Mbps, so if new middle mile becomes
commercially available to those areas, it will trigger a new
performance plan filing?
89. The Commission also seeks comment on what changes, if any, it
should make to coverage commitment requirements. In the Alaska Plan,
the mobile provider performance plans committed to cover a specified
number of people. To determine the covered population of each provider,
WTB and OEA adopted the Alaska Population Distribution Order, which
distributed the population of a census block to areas where the
population is most likely to reside. Where an exception was granted for
the Alaska Population Distribution Model, it was often due to having
more specific data on where housing was located. Now that the BDC has
developed a location Fabric, should the Fabric be used to determine
where populations are likely to be located, instead of the Alaska
Population Distribution Model for the Alaska Connect Fund? Should the
Commission somehow translate Fabric locations to population, and if so,
how should that work? If not, should the Commission do it based on
coverage of the hex-9 centroid or another method? What implications
would this approach have for mobile service in Alaska? Would
commitments based on population from the Fabric lead to some
unpopulated roads or travel routes remaining unserved, even though
mobile service is needed along those routes? If so, how could the
Commission address such a situation? Should it consider a hybrid
approach that uses both Fabric data and a population methodology or
Fabric data and uncovered-roads methodology? Alternatively, should the
Commission move to a geographic coverage requirement or some other type
of coverage commitment? For example, instead of committing to cover
population, should the provider commit to cover the eligible hex-9 (or
whatever
[[Page 80252]]
base geographic unit the Commission uses) to account for the need to
cover unpopulated road areas (e.g., roads that connect populated
areas)? What type of coverage commitments will lead to the best
coverage in remote Alaska?
90. Updating Performance Plans. Participants were required to
update their performance plans during the course of the Alaska Plan
under three circumstances: (1) at the four-year mark of the Alaska
Plan--December 31, 2020--for the second half of the ten-year term of
the Plan; (2) if the provider committed to provide less than 4G LTE at
10/1 Mbps and new terrestrial backhaul or next-generation satellite
became commercially available to an area; or (3) if WTB determined that
the filing of revised commitments was justified by developments that
occurred after the approval of the initial commitments. During the
course of the Alaska Plan so far, only two providers submitted
additional performance plans that were accepted by WTB, and both were
submitted due to the introduction of new middle mile capacity becoming
commercially available to an area. Several additional providers were
instructed to provide updated performance plans, based on developments
that occurred after the initial commitments, but failed to provide
updates that reflected the developments. The Commission seeks comment
on what, if any, changes it should make to the requirements to update
performance plans during the course of the Alaska Connect Fund term to
ensure funds are used the most effectively for the benefit of Alaskans.
In particular, the Commission seeks comment on how to determine when
new commitments would be triggered, how new commitments should be
determined, and what penalties it should consider for failure to comply
with requirements to submit updated commitments.
91. Additional Public Interest Obligations. Alaska Plan mobile
participants have additional public interest obligations. First,
providers had to maintain at least the level of service that they had
been providing as of the date their individual plans were adopted by
WTB and to offer a stand-alone voice service. Second, providers had to
certify in their annual compliance filings that their rates were
reasonably comparable to rates for comparable offerings in urban areas.
Each mobile provider must also demonstrate compliance with this
requirement at the end of the five-year and 10-year milestones and may
do this by showing that its required stand-alone voice plan, and one
service plan that offers broadband data services, if it offers such
plans, were substantially similar to those offered by at least one
mobile service provider in the cellular market area for Anchorage and
offered at the same or lower rate. Were these additional public
interest obligations, in addition to the other obligations of the
Alaska Plan, sufficient to ensure that the public interest was being
met in extending mobile services in remote areas of Alaska? The
Commission seeks comment on what, if any, changes it should make to
these public interest obligations. With respect to the reasonably
comparable rate requirement, should the Commission adjust the
requirement in any way? In the Alaska Plan, some mobile providers have
committed to provide 2G and 3G data services. If the Commission allows
providers to continue to receive funds for these older generations of
technology, how should it compare the 2G and 3G plans to plans in the
Anchorage area, which do not appear to have available data plans using
these older technologies? Should a provider need to meet the Sec.
54.308(d) requirement in every area it provides service? How can the
Commission best advance in Alaska section 254(b)(3) of the Act, which
seeks to ensure that advanced telecommunications and information
services in rural areas ``are reasonably comparable to those services
provided in urban areas and that are available at rates that are
reasonably comparable to rates charged for similar services in urban
areas.''
92. The Alaska Plan is set to end on December 31, 2026. The
Commission has not determined how support will be allocated to mobile
providers in eligible areas after this date. ATA asks the Commission to
start a new version of the plan by January 2024, or as soon as possible
thereafter, citing the need for advanced planning for future
deployments. The Commission seeks comment on when to start the Alaska
Connect Fund. Should the Alaska Connect Fund begin as soon as possible,
with new commitments? Or should the Commission start it after the
Alaska Plan ends? Alternatively, if necessary, should the Commission
extend existing funding until after BEAD support has been allocated, as
this may affect the type, availability, and cost of middle mile access
for mobile services? To the extent that funding stability is needed
beyond the end of the Alaska Plan, as ATA suggests, would this also be
an issue at the end of an Alaska Connect Fund; and if so, how can
providers be held to their final commitments? The Commission also seeks
comment on how to ensure that final commitments to Alaskans in the
Alaska Plan are honored if a new plan were to start before the final
commitments are required to be fulfilled.
93. If the Commission has not made a decision about an alternate
plan by the end of the Alaska Plan--December 31, 2026--should current
participants have their support continue indefinitely until the
effective date of the new plan or some other potential end date, such
as the date on which the Commission approves participants for the new
plan or the start of disbursements under the new plan? Should the
Alaska Plan support be subject to phase down, consistent with the
original identical support phase down? Also, should participants of the
Alaska Plan that choose to opt out of or are deemed ineligible for the
Alaska Connect Fund stop receiving support on December 31, 2026,
consistent with the Alaska Plan? Or should their support phase out on
an updated schedule similar to Sec. 54.307(e)(3)(iv)?
94. The Commission seeks comment on how other funding programs
should influence the timing of the Alaska Connect Fund for mobile
providers. In light of the fact that Alaska will receive more than $1
billion in funding for broadband deployments under the BEAD program,
which has yet to be allocated to specific projects, and that one
provider will separately receive approximately $89 million in Federal
funding to deploy middle mile in Alaska, should the Commission wait to
start the Alaska Connect Fund until after it has more information about
these deployment projects, so that it can ensure the most efficient and
effective use of high-cost funds? What impact will these and other
broadband infrastructure programs have on mobile service in Alaska, and
how can the Commission avoid overlap? ATA suggests that the BEAD
program is a reason to act quickly to ensure funding is stable beyond
2026, as ``project bidders must provide evidence that they are able to
provide sustained operation and committed service of a BEAD-funded
network.'' ATA notes that if improved middle mile becomes commercially
available in an area served due to the BEAD program, new commitments
could be triggered in the Alaska Connect Fund. While this approach is
similar to the Alaska Plan, which requires providers to submit updated
performance commitments when new middle mile becomes commercially
available, the Commission notes that the failure of some providers to
update performance plans when required was a problem in the Alaska
[[Page 80253]]
Plan. The Commission seeks comment on ATA's recommendation that it
begin the Alaska Connect Fund before BEAD funding is allocated. In
addition, the Commission seeks comment generally on how best to
maximize Alaska Connect Fund support and administration for mobile
services in light of BEAD and other broadband infrastructure programs.
95. The Commission also seeks comment on the term of the Alaska
Connect Fund. Given the pace of technology advancements in mobile
services, the Commission seeks comment on whether extending the high-
cost support to Alaska through 2034, as ATA suggests, would create an
appropriate support term. Would a shorter term promote flexibility and
encourage technology advances? Or, alternatively, would a shorter term
limit the ability of mobile providers to plan for future deployments
and upgrades? Would a longer term have any benefits? The Commission
also seeks comment on ATA's proposal that it allows for automatic
extensions of a new plan in one-year intervals at the end of the term
unless the Commission acts otherwise.
96. The Commission seeks comment on how to ensure accountability
and oversight of the Alaska Connect Fund. The Alaska Plan employs
carrier self-reporting and drive tests to determine whether providers
are meeting their commitments to Alaskans. Mobile-provider participants
in the Alaska Plan also were required to file voice and broadband
coverage data, consistent with FCC Form 477, which the Commission uses
to evaluate whether providers were covering the number of Alaskans with
the minimum speeds and technology they were promised. The 2016 Alaska
Plan Order required use of the FCC Form 477 for the Commission's
evaluation of coverage, and though the Commission now uses coverage
maps from the BDC, WTB and OEA have issued an order requiring continued
filing of data pursuant to FCC Form 477 rules in order to have like
comparisons throughout the duration of the Alaska Plan. Providers were
also required to certify that they had met their commitments at the
five-year and ten-year milestones. As noted in this document, several
mobile providers had to re-file their Form 477 data based on
inaccuracies in their initial filing. What additional accountability
measures can the Commission employ to ensure that providers are filing
accurate coverage data? The Commission also seeks comment on additional
accountability and oversight measures. Under the 2016 Alaska Plan
Order, mobile-provider participants receiving more than $5 million
annually--GCI and Copper Valley Wireless--had to conduct drive testing
with a statistically significant number of tests in the vicinity of
residences being covered. This required WTB and OEA to construct a
drive test model and provide GCI and Copper Valley Wireless a sampling
of grid cells in order for GCI and Copper Valley Wireless to meet this
requirement.
97. For providers receiving $5 million or less annually, USAC hired
a third-party drive tester to measure performance on some of those
providers' networks to verify their coverage. What, if any, changes
should the Commission make to the on-the-ground testing requirements
under a new plan? If the Commission used the BDC outdoor stationary
coverage maps to measure compliance with providers' performance plans,
would on-the-ground testing be limited to outdoor, stationary tests and
there would be no in-motion testing? Should USAC administer all on-the-
ground testing, even for those providers receiving more than $5 million
annually, to ensure uniformity? Should providers receiving more than $5
million annually from the Alaska Connect Fund either conduct the tests
themselves or cover the costs of USAC-administered on-the-ground
testing as a condition of participating in a universal service fund?
Should the Commission impose any additional accountability measures,
such as requiring mobile providers to submit infrastructure data for
the areas they receive support that meet the infrastructure
specifications that mobile providers would submit through the BDC
challenge and verification processes or otherwise expand on the audit
provision of the prior plan?
98. Should the Commission consider using the methodologies adopted
in the BDC mobile verification process as the basis for substantiating
coverage and demonstrating compliance? Specifically, the Commission
seeks comment on whether to require providers to submit either on-the-
ground test data or infrastructure data, or a combination of the two,
to substantiate their coverage in the areas for which they receive
Alaska Connect Fund support. In particular, should providers be
required to submit on-the-ground test data for areas that are
accessible and infrastructure data for areas that are inaccessible?
Should they submit infrastructure data sufficient to generate a ``core
coverage area,'' as defined in the BDC mobile verification process, and
on-the-ground test data for areas outside of such a core coverage area?
Alternatively, should providers be allowed to submit either type of
data regardless of the type of area in which they are deploying
service? For performance-plan commitments made pursuant to outdoor
stationary maps in the BDC, would in-motion audit testing be
appropriate for testing that mobile service, and if so, what sort of
in-motion testing would be appropriate? For performance-plan
commitments made pursuant to in-vehicle BDC coverage, would a minimum
in-motion speed of 15 mph be appropriate for drive testing?
99. How can the Commission best ensure a coverage commitment that
is enforceable? For example, should the Commission require mobile
providers to identify all of the specific hex-9s they commit to serve?
Should commitment information be made public? In addition to requiring
providers to submit coverage area information to ensure they have met
their commitments, should the Commission also require that they submit
infrastructure data and/or on-the-ground speed test data for the
supported areas, as contemplated in the 5G Fund Further Notice?
100. If a provider chooses to submit on-the-ground test data in
response to a BDC mobile verification request, it must provide such
data based on a sample of on-the-ground tests that is statistically
appropriate for the area tested. In the BDC, the sampled area is based
on H3 resolution-8 hexagonal areas, and the provider must submit the
results of at least two tests within each hexagon, and the time of the
tests must be at least four hours apart, irrespective of date. The
tests are then evaluated to confirm, using a one-sided 95% statistical
confidence interval, that the cell coverage has at least a 90%
probability of meeting the minimum speed requirements at the cell edge.
Should the Commission apply this BDC mobile verification process to the
Alaska Connect Fund, at a hex-9 resolution, instead of a hex-8, and
require mobile providers to submit on-the-ground test data based on a
sample of supported areas? The Commission seeks comment on this
approach. Do commenters believe that more tests or fewer tests should
be required within a hexagonal area? Should the tests be spaced further
than four hours apart or closer together?
101. If a provider chooses to submit infrastructure data in
response to a BDC mobile verification request, it must submit
additional information beyond what is submitted as part of its biannual
BDC availability data (propagation modeling details, as well as link
budget and clutter data), including cell-site and antenna data for the
targeted area. Should the Commission require the same additional
infrastructure data that is required in the mobile verification process
when a provider chooses to
[[Page 80254]]
submit infrastructure data to substantiate coverage in areas supported
by the Alaska Connect Fund? The Commission seeks comment on this
approach.
102. In the 2016 Alaska Plan Order, the interim milestone
commitments were due December 31, 2021. This initial assessment
resulted in several noncompliance letters and occasional confusion
regarding what the mobile-provider participant had committed to. Should
the next version of the plan have more than just one interim-commitment
milestone dates to ensure that each provider is making steady progress
toward its final commitments, as well as ensure that the provider has
more opportunities to comply where it may have a misunderstanding of
its obligations? Would having multiple interim milestones within the
Alaska Connect Fund term raise concerns? Could compliance issues also
be improved through annual progress meetings? Should the Commission
impose stricter requirements on providers that had a higher percentage
of non-compliance, such as annual on-the-ground testing requirements or
quarterly submission of infrastructure data based on the BDC
infrastructure data specifications or a combination of both? What
safeguards can the Commission adopt to improve compliance?
103. As noted in this document, the Commission is committed to
working with Tribes and Tribal leaders. The Commission seeks comment on
issues related to Tribal Nations and Tribal Lands in Alaska as it
considers the Alaska Connect Fund for mobile providers. Are there any
Tribal concerns that arise from or could be addressed by the Alaska
Connect Fund that are specific to mobile service, and if so, how should
those issues best be addressed?
104. Cybersecurity. Are there any cybersecurity concerns that arise
from or could be addressed by an Alaska Connect Fund that are specific
to mobile service, and if so, how should those issues best be
addressed? The Supply Chain Reimbursement Program proceedings, for
example, have required three mobile-provider participants in the Alaska
Plan to remove equipment from untrusted suppliers and, as a practical
matter, allowed for network upgrades in the process. Are there security
advantages from that proceeding that other providers should integrate?
Should mobile-provider participants in the Alaska Connect Fund be
required to use the NIST Framework for Improving Critical
Infrastructure Cybersecurity to manage cybersecurity risks and certify
accordingly? The Commission proposes that Alaska Connect Fund support
recipients be required to implement a cybersecurity risk management
plan that reflects the latest version of the NIST Framework for
Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity, that reflects an
established set of cybersecurity best practices, such as the standards
and controls set forth in the CISA Cybersecurity Cross-sector
Performance Goals and Objectives or the CIS Critical Security Controls
as these elements pertain to mobile service. The Commission also
proposes that carriers be required to implement supply chain risk
management plans that incorporate the key practices discussed in NISTIR
8276, Key practices in the Cyber Supply Chain Risk Management
Observations from Industry, and related supply chain risk management
guidance from NIST 800-161. Would it be appropriate for Alaska Connect
Fund recipients to submit to USAC their updated cybersecurity and
supply chain risk management plans within 30 days of making a
substantive modification thereto, as E-ACAM recipients must? The
Commission proposes providers receiving support under the Alaska
Connect Fund adopt the same cybersecurity reporting requirements that
were adopted in the E-ACAM Notice for both mobile and fixed carriers.
The Commission seeks comment on this proposal. What reasons, if any,
would support differences in cybersecurity requirements between the
mobile and fixed carriers under the Alaska Connect Fund?
105. Open RAN. The Commission seeks comment on whether it should
use the Alaska Connect Fund to encourage the deployment of Open RAN,
and if so, how. In its March 2021 Open RAN NOI, 86 FR 16349, March 29,
2021, the Commission sought input on ``whether, and if so, how,
deployment of Open RAN-compliant networks could further the
Commission's policy goals and statutory obligations, advance
legislative priorities, and benefit American consumers by making state-
of-the-art wireless broadband available faster and to more people in
additional parts of the country.'' Soon after the Open RAN NOI was
adopted, the President signed Executive Order 14036, which encouraged
the Commission to ``consider . . . providing support for the continued
development and adoption of 5G Open Radio Access Network . . .
protocols and software.'' The Commission has since sought comment in
the 5G Fund Further Notice on whether and how it should factor the use
of Open RAN technologies into the 5G Fund, noting that ``Open RAN has
the potential to allow carriers to promote the security of their
networks while driving innovation, in particular in next-generation
technologies like 5G, lowering costs, increasing vendor diversity, and
enabling more flexible network architecture.'' Should the Alaska
Connect Fund encourage Open RAN? If so, how should it do this? In
addressing these questions, commenters should identify with
particularity industry-accepted Open RAN specifications, standards, or
technical requirements that would represent suitable evaluative
criteria for mobile providers in remote Alaska.
106. Renewable Energy. Fuel costs are expensive in Alaska. And some
of this directly affects communications infrastructure operation, such
as microwave towers that may be isolated from other infrastructure and
require diesel fuel to be brought to the site via helicopter to remote
sites. Can the Commission require or create incentives for the use of
renewable energy--such as a combination of wind, solar, and batteries--
to be used at microwave tower or other communications infrastructure
sites, which could lower operational expenditures around fuel costs, as
well as be more environmentally friendly?
107. To the extent not already addressed, the Commission, as part
of its continuing effort to advance digital equity for all, including
people of color, persons with disabilities, persons who live in rural
or Tribal areas, and others who are or have been historically
underserved, marginalized, or adversely affected by persistent poverty
or inequality, invites comment on any equity-related considerations and
benefits (if any) that may be associated with the proposals and issues
discussed herein. Specifically, the Commission seeks comment on how its
inquiries may promote or inhibit advances in diversity, equity,
inclusion, and accessibility, as well the scope of the Commission's
relevant legal authority.
II. Procedural Matters
Paperwork Reduction Act
108. The NPRM contains possible new or modified information
collection requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing
effort to reduce paperwork burdens, will invite the general public and
the Office of Management and Budget to comment on the information
collection requirements contained in the NPRM, as required by the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
[[Page 80255]]
Public Law 104-13. In addition, pursuant to the Small Business
Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C.
3506(c)(4), the Commission seeks specific comment on how it might
further reduce the information collection burden for small business
concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
109. Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act. The
Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act requires each agency,
in providing notice of a rulemaking, to post online a brief plain-
language summary of the proposed rule. Accordingly, the Commission will
publish the required summary of the NPRM on https://www.fcc.gov/proposed-rulemakings.
110. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as
amended (RFA), the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities by the policies and rules
proposed in the NPRM. Written public comments are requested on this
IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be
filed by the deadlines for comments provided in the NPRM. The
Commission will send a copy of the NPRM, including this IRFA, to the
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA).
In addition, the NPRM and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published
in the Federal Register.
111. In the NPRM, the Commission seeks comment regarding the best
approach for developing the next phase for the Alaska Connect Fund in
order to determine the most effective means of supporting Alaska's
remote areas once fixed and mobile support for both incumbent and
competitive LECs have ended. The Commission has recognized the inherent
challenges in serving these areas of Alaska and understands the
necessity in providing innovative solutions and unique accommodations
to residents and businesses alike. The Commission also recognizes that
there are areas of Alaska that still lack high-quality affordable
broadband, where residents may be deprived of the opportunity to keep
up with the advancements in technology that Americans living elsewhere
benefit from. Currently, the Commission provides high-cost support to
Alaska Plan fixed and mobile carriers, ACS, and A-CAM carriers. In the
2016 Alaska Plan Order, the Commission stated that it would conduct a
rulemaking prior to the close of the 10-year support term to determine
whether and how support would be provided after the end of the 10-year
support term, and that the Commission would consider adjustments for
marketplace changes and the realities of the current time. In the ACS
Order, the Commission stated that it would conduct a rulemaking in year
eight of the program to determine how support would be awarded for the
areas at the conclusion of the program. In the NPRM, the Commission
initiates those rulemakings as a means of assessing all of the changes,
both in technology and in the broadband funding landscape, that have
occurred in Alaska since the inception of the Alaska Plan and the ACS
Order in 2016. The Commission also undertakes a fresh look at the most
efficient use of Universal Service Fund high-cost support in Alaska
going forward not only to help connect unserved Alaskan communities but
also to support existing service and service funded through other
Federal and state programs. The Commission relies on the experiences of
the Alaskan carriers--many of which are small business entities--and
the record stemming from proposals in recent petitions to build a
record on how best to structure and target Alaska Connect Fund support.
112. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and,
where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be
affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA generally defines
the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms
``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small governmental
jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business'' has the same
meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the Small Business
Act.'' A ``small business concern'' is one which: (1) is independently
owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and
(3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA.
113. Small Businesses, Small Organizations, and Small Governmental
Jurisdictions. The Commission's actions, over time, may affect small
entities that are not easily categorized at present. The Commission
therefore describes here, at the outset, three broad groups of small
entities that could be directly affected herein. First, while there are
industry specific size standards for small businesses that are used in
the regulatory flexibility analysis, according to data from the SBA's
Office of Advocacy, in general a small business is an independent
business having fewer than 500 employees. These types of small
businesses represent 99.9% of all businesses in the United States which
translates to 33.2 million businesses. Next, the type of small entity
described as a ``small organization'' is generally ``any not-for-profit
enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.'' The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) uses a
revenue benchmark of $50,000 or less to delineate its annual electronic
filing requirements for small exempt organizations. Nationwide, for tax
year 2020, there were approximately 447,689 small exempt organizations
in the U.S. reporting revenues of $50,000 or less according to the
registration and tax data for exempt organizations available from the
IRS. Finally, the small entity described as a ``small governmental
jurisdiction'' is defined generally as ``governments of cities,
counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special
districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.'' U.S. Census
Bureau data from the 2017 Census of Governments indicate there were
90,075 local governmental jurisdictions consisting of general purpose
governments and special purpose governments in the United States. Of
this number, there were 36,931 general purpose governments (county,
municipal, and town or township) with populations of less than 50,000
and 12,040 special purpose governments--independent school districts
with enrollment populations of less than 50,000. Accordingly, based on
the 2017 U.S. Census of Governments data, the Commission estimates that
at least 48,971 entities fall into the category of ``small governmental
jurisdictions.''
114. Small entities potentially affected by the rules herein
include Wired Telecommunications Carriers, LECs, Incumbent LECs,
Competitive LECs, Interexchange Carriers (IXC's), Local Resellers, Toll
Resellers, Other Toll Carriers, Prepaid Calling Card Providers, Fixed
Microwave Services, Cable and Other Subscription Programming, Cable
Companies and Systems (Rate Regulation), Cable System Operators
(Telecom Act Standard), Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless
Communications Equipment Manufacturing, Satellite Telecommunications,
Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite), All Other
Telecommunications, Wired Broadband internet Access Service Providers
(Wired ISPs), Wireless Broadband internet Access Service Providers
(Wireless ISPs or WISPs), internet Service Providers (Non-Broadband),
and All Other Information Services.
115. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant,
specifically small business, alternatives that it has
[[Page 80256]]
considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the
following four alternatives (among others): ``(1) the establishment of
differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take
into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the
clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and
reporting requirements under the rule for such small entities; (3) the
use of performance rather than design standards; and (4) an exemption
from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for such small
entities.''
116. In the NPRM, the Commission takes steps to minimize the
economic impact on small entities and considers significant
alternatives by proposing and seeking alternative proposals designed to
balance its requirements to provide support that is sufficient to
achieve the Commission's universal service goals, while also providing
appropriate incentives for prudent and efficient expenditures. With
these goals in mind, in the NPRM, the Commission took the steps of
considering measures related to the budget for the Alaska Connect Fund
support mechanism that could potentially benefit legacy support
recipients, including small entities, by having their support shifted
towards costs that are trending higher for such carriers. For example,
the Commission considered providing funding for both areas that still
requires buildout and ongoing support for areas that are already built
out. In addition, the Commission also considered allowing the option to
participate in the Alaska Connect Fund for small entities and other
carriers that are not current support recipients. In considering these
matters, the Commission notes that the costs of high-cost universal
service is ultimately borne by consumers through the contributions
factors assessed on their bills.
117. The Commission also considered alternatives for specific
deployment obligations for carriers receiving Alaska Plan support. For
example, the Commission considered whether it should change the
obligations to require the deployment of broadband at a different
speed, for example 100/20 Mbps consistent with the Infrastructure Act.
Alternatively, the Commission considered retaining the existing
requirement that support recipients offer broadband at speeds of 25/3
Mbps deployment obligations, as well as revisiting deployment
obligations to account for another government agency making a
qualifying award with enforceable deployment obligations in the
carrier's service area. If the Commission were to adopt lower broadband
speed obligations, like 25/3 Mbps, it might reduce costs for small and
other legacy support recipients. A carrier's costs may also be reduced
if other funding programs award funding in the rate-of-return carrier's
service area, and that carrier is no longer required to serve the
locations receiving the alternative funding. However, these scenarios
may affect support for such carriers if the Commission adjusts support
to account for the lower costs or duplicative funding.
118. Additionally, the Commission considered alternatives for
specific deployment obligations for mobile-provider participants that
receive Alaska Connect Fund support. For example, the Commission
considered whether it should require the deployment of 5G-NR at 35/3
Mbps, or whether it should revisit deployment obligations to account
for another agency making a qualifying award with enforceable
deployment obligations in the carrier's service area. If the Commission
were to adopt lower broadband speed obligations, like \7/1\ Mbps, it
might reduce costs for small and other legacy support recipients. A
carrier's costs may also be reduced if other funding programs award
grants in the mobile participant's awarded area, and if carriers
receiving duplicative support are no longer required to serve the
locations receiving the alternative funding. However, as is the case
for rate-of-return carriers, these scenarios may result in the
reduction of support for these carriers if the Commission adjusts
support to account for the lower costs or duplicative funding.
119. Lastly, in consideration of reducing the economic burden small
and other entities might experience, the Commission seeks comment on
alternatives for reducing a carrier's support amount to reflect the
availability of funding from other Federal and state programs in their
service areas or to reflect that an unsubsidized competitor serves the
area. For example, the Commission could identify whether the timing for
BEAD funding, which instructs states to award funding for unserved
locations, underserved locations and community anchor institutions,
overlaps with the Alaska Connect Fund funding, thereby warranting
changing the timing for awarding support amounts.
120. The matters discussed in the NPRM are designed to ensure the
Commission has a better understanding of both the benefits and the
potential burdens associated with the different actions and methods
before adopting its final rules.
121. To assist in the Commission's evaluation of the economic
impact on small entities, as a result of actions it has proposed in the
NPRM, and to better explore options and alternatives, the Commission
has sought comment from the parties. In particular, the Commission
seeks comment on whether any of the burdens associated the filing,
recordkeeping and reporting requirements described in this document can
be minimized for small businesses. Through comments received in
response to the NPRM and the IRFA, including costs and benefits
information and any alternative proposals, the Commission expects to
more fully consider ways to minimize the economic impact on small
entities. The Commission's evaluation of the comments filed in this
proceeding will shape the final alternatives it considers, the final
conclusions it reaches, and the actions it ultimately takes in this
proceeding to minimize any significant economic impact that may occur
on small entities as a result of any final rules that are adopted.
III. Ordering Clauses
122. It is ordered that, pursuant to the authority contained in
sections 1, 2, 4, 5, 201-06, 214, 218-220, 251-52, 254, 256, 301, 303,
309, 332, and 403, and of the Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151-52, 154-
55, 201-06, 214, 218-20, 251-52, 254, 256, 301, 303, 309, 332, and 403
this NPRM is adopted. This NPRM will be effective upon publication in
the Federal Register, with comment dates indicated therein.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary, Office of the Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-25375 Filed 11-16-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P