Connect America Fund, Alaska Connect Fund, Connect America Fund-Alaska Plan, ETC Annual Reports and Certifications, Telecommunications Carriers Eligible To Receive Universal Service Support, Universal Service Reform-Mobility Fund

Primary source

Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.

Published

December 4, 2024

Issuing agencies

Federal Communications Commission

Abstract

In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) adopted a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) that seeks comment on the implementation of the Alaska Connect Fund (ACF) for mobile service from the period January 1, 2030 through December 31, 2034 for areas where more than one mobile provider had been receiving support for overlapping service areas, or duplicate- support areas (ACF Mobile Phase II). This includes comment on the methodology to determine support amounts in duplicate-support areas and the competitive or alternative mechanism to distribute support, which would result in support to a single mobile provider in duplicate- support areas after ACF Mobile Phase I (mobile support provided from January 1, 2027 to December 31, 2029) ends. The Commission also seeks comment on how to distribute support in unserved areas, Tribal consent requirements for the ACF, and other additional issues that would impact the ACF.

Full Text

<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 89 Issue 233 (Wednesday, December 4, 2024)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 233 (Wednesday, December 4, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 96166-96176]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2024-28170]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 54

[WC Docket Nos. 10-90, 23-328, 16-271, 14-58, 09-197; WT Docket No. 10-
208; FCC 24-116; FR ID 264716]

Connect America Fund, Alaska Connect Fund, Connect America Fund--
Alaska Plan, 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 Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM)
that seeks comment on the implementation of the Alaska Connect Fund
(ACF) for mobile service from the period January 1, 2030 through
December 31, 2034 for areas where more than one mobile provider had
been receiving support for overlapping service areas, or duplicate-
support areas (ACF Mobile Phase II). This includes comment on the
methodology to determine support amounts in duplicate-support areas and
the competitive or alternative mechanism to distribute support, which
would result in support to a single mobile provider in duplicate-
support areas after ACF Mobile Phase I (mobile support provided from
January 1, 2027 to December 31, 2029) ends. The Commission also seeks
comment on how to distribute support in unserved areas, Tribal consent
requirements for the ACF, and other additional issues that would impact
the ACF.

DATES: Comments are due on or before February 3, 2025, and reply
comments are due on or before March 4, 2025.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by WC Docket Nos. 10-90,
23-328, 16-271, 14-58, 09-197 or WT Docket No. 10-208 by any of the
following methods:
<bullet> Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
using the internet by accessing the Electronic Comment Filing System
(ECFS): <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/">https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/</a>.
<bullet> Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must
file an original and one copy of each filing.
<bullet> Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by
commercial courier, or by the U.S. Postal Service. All filings must be
addressed to the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
<bullet> Hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for
the Commission's Secretary are accepted between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.
by the FCC's mailing contractor at 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis
Junction, MD 20701. All hand deliveries must be held together with
rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of
before entering the building.
<bullet> Commercial courier deliveries (any deliveries not by the
U.S. Postal Service) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis
Junction, MD 20701.
<bullet> Filings sent by U.S. Postal Service First-Class Mail,
Priority Mail, and Priority Mail Express must be sent to 45 L Street
NE, Washington, DC 20554.
People with Disabilities. To request materials in accessible
formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic
files, audio format), send an email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#8ceaefefb9bcb8cceaefefa2ebe3fa"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f89e9b9bcdc8ccb89e9b9bd69f978e">[email&#160;protected]</span></a> 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, Matt Warner, Competition and Infrastructure Policy Division,
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6b260a1f1f030e1c453c0a19050e192b0d0808450c041d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="024f6376766a67752c5563706c6770426461612c656d74">[email&#160;protected]</span></a> or (202)
418-2419.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's FNPRM
in WC Docket Nos. 10-90, 23-328, 16-271, 14-58, 09-197 and WT Docket
No. 10-208; FCC 24-116, adopted on November 1, 2024 and released on
November 4, 2024. The full text of this document is available at the
following internet address: <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-adopts-alaska-connect-fund-further-address-broadband-needs">https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-adopts-alaska-connect-fund-further-address-broadband-needs</a>. The Commission
also concurrently adopted a Report and Order (Order) that takes
important and necessary steps to ensure continued support for the
advancement of modern mobile and fixed broadband service in Alaska.
Filing Requirements. Pursuant to Sec. Sec. 1.415 and 1.419 of the
Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file
comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated in this
document. Comments may be filed using the Commission's ECFS or by
paper. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary,
Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
Ex Parte Rules. This proceeding 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). 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), 47 CFR 1.1206(b). Participants
in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the Commission's
ex parte rules.
Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act. Consistent with
the Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act, Public Law 118-
9, a summary of the FNPRM is available on <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/proposed-rulemakings">https://www.fcc.gov/proposed-rulemakings</a>.

Synopsis

I. Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

In this FNPRM, the Commission seeks comment on a number of issues
related to the implementation of the ACF.
As an initial matter, for ACF Mobile Phase II, the Commission seeks
comment on a methodology to determine a support amount for areas where
more than one mobile provider had been receiving support for
overlapping service areas. This mechanism may also be used to determine
support amounts to claw

[[Page 96167]]

back for areas that the Commission deems ineligible for mobile support
in the concurrently adopted Report and Order (Order) in the event that
support is not shifted to a comparable area.
Additionally, the Commission seeks comment on ACF Mobile Phase II
service requirements, as well as how to eliminate duplicative support
in ACF Mobile Phase II so that only one provider would continue to
receive funding in duplicate-support areas. First, the Commission seeks
comment on a competitive mechanism for awarding support to one provider
in duplicate-support areas. Second, the Commission seeks comment on an
alternative mechanism to address duplicate-support areas that would
designate one provider that would continue receiving support in the
same area, and would allow other providers to choose different areas to
serve to continue receiving the previous support levels.
In addition, the Commission seeks to update the record on how best
to deploy mobile service to areas that remain unserved with the $162
million from the Alaska Plan that has been reallocated toward this
purpose. Further, the Commission seeks comment on conducting a reverse
auction to award support to competitive Eligible Telecommunication
Carriers (ETCs) to deploy advanced communications networks in these
areas.
The Commission seeks comment on additional issues for
implementation of the mobile portion of the ACF, for both the two
support-area plan established in the concurrently adopted Order and the
ACF Mobile Phase II as described in this document. The Commission seeks
comment on retail consumer conditions, including seeking comment on a
proposal to impose a minimum subscriber requirement for ACF mobile
participants, as well as seeking comment on marketing on Tribal lands.
The Commission also seeks further comment on offering incentives to
deploy networks with Open Radio Access Network (Open RAN). Finally, the
Commission seeks further comment on Tribal consent under both the
mobile and fixed portions of the ACF.
The Commission seeks comment on how to determine support amounts by
area for purposes of the mobile portion of the ACF--for example, to
determine the support amounts for duplicate-support areas and single-
support areas, as well as previously supported areas that are no longer
eligible. In the Alaska Plan, providers were awarded funding based on
statewide commitments. Because the Commission adopts an area-based
approach for the mobile portion of the ACF, it must establish a way to
disaggregate total support across smaller geographic areas.
Specifically, in order to address issues involving providers serving
areas that are ineligible in the ACF but were eligible in the Alaska
Plan (e.g., areas which have an unsubsidized provider of 5G-NR at 7/1
Mbps in an outdoor stationary environment or three or more mobile
providers offering at least 4G LTE at 5/1 Mbps in an outdoor stationary
environment--with at least one of those providers being unsubsidized--
based on Broadband Data Collection (BDC) coverage data as of December
31, 2024), the Commission must calculate how much support has been
allocated to these ineligible areas. In the Alaska Connect Fund Notice,
88 FR 80238, November 17, 2023, the Commission asked if duplicate funds
could be redistributed ``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?'' As no commenters directly
addressed this question, the Commission seeks comment on the
methodology in the following to calculate Alaska Plan support in
specific areas, at the hex-9 level.
Because mobile providers have statewide buildout requirements under
the Alaska Plan, calculating a provider's rate of support in any given
area is particularly complicated, since providers that receive support
to cover multiple areas are not required to spend that money in any
particular area. A provider's average rate of support over all areas is
likely not to reflect the amount of support it uses to cover any
particular area. However, the average support rate for a provider that
receives support for a more targeted area is more likely to reflect the
amount of support that the provider needs to cover that area. Based on
that assumption, the Commission seeks comment on whether to iterate
through the Alaska Plan participants, from smallest footprint to
largest, using the smaller providers' support as proxies for the
support for larger providers in areas where they overlap.
To provide a detailed example of the information in this document,
the Commission would first consider the support of the provider
covering the fewest number of hex-9s located in Alaska Plan eligible
census blocks (Provider A). Specifically, the Commission would divide
Provider A's annual support by the total number of hex-9s that the
provider covers in Alaska Plan eligible census blocks to calculate an
average value for each covered hex-9. A hex-9 would be considered
covered by a provider if 70% of the grandchild hex-11s were covered at
the centroid, using the union of December 2024 BDC mobile broadband and
mobile voice coverage for that provider. For example, if Provider A
receives $100,000 in annual support and covers 1,000 hex-9s in Alaska
Plan eligible blocks, each such hex-9 it covers would be said to
receive $100 in annual support.
The Commission would then evaluate the support of the provider
covering the second fewest hex-9s in Alaska Plan eligible census blocks
(Provider B). The Commission would first determine if Provider B
covered any of the same hex-9s as Provider A. If so, the value of those
hex-9s would be the same as for Provider A; in this example, $100 per
hex-9. The Commission would subtract the funding of these duplicate
hex-9s from Provider B's total annual support, and divide the remaining
annual support by the remaining covered hex-9s to calculate the funding
for each hex-9 that is not duplicated by Provider A. To continue the
example, suppose Provider B receives $150,000 in annual support and
covers 2,500 hex-9s in Alaska Plan eligible blocks, and that 500 of
these hex-9s are also covered by Provider A. In this case, the
Commission would say that 500 of its hex-9s would each be assigned a
value of $100, for a total of $50,000. The Commission would then
calculate that the remaining $100,000 of support spread across the
remaining 2,000 hex-9s results in each non-duplicate hex-9 receiving
$50 of support. Alternatively, if there were no overlap between
Providers A and B, the calculation for Provider B would follow the same
process as Provider A, distributing $150,000 across the 2,500 hex-9s,
resulting in each hex-9 covered by Provider B receiving $60 of support.
This process would be repeated with the provider covering the next
largest area, or Provider C, such that its hex-9s that overlap with
Provider A would be valued the same as for Provider A ($100 in the
above example), the hex-9s that overlap with Provider B would be valued
the same as for Provider B ($50 in the above example), and the
remaining hex-9s as the average of the remaining support. (Note that if
Providers A, B, and C all overlap in some hex-9s, the value would be at
Provider A's average, or $100 in this example). The process would then
iterate through the remaining providers, smallest to largest in terms
of covered hex-9s in eligible Alaska Plan blocks, until a value has
been assigned for every covered hex-9. Note that it would

[[Page 96168]]

theoretically be possible for the largest of the eight Alaska Plan
providers to have hex-9s valued at each of the smaller seven provider's
averages, and then have its own average for its remaining hex-9s.
Further, the Commission would also use these values to determine
the amount of ACF support at stake in areas no longer eligible in the
ACF. Continuing the example in this document, if 100 of Provider B's
non-duplicate hex-9s were no longer eligible, the value of those hex-9s
would be $5,000. If Provider B were not able to commit to cover
comparable hex-9s in its performance plan, its annual ACF support would
be reduced by $5,000. Similarly, if the 100 ineligible hex-9s were
covered by both Providers A and B, the value of each hex-9 would be
$100, and the at-stake ACF support would be $10,000 for each provider.
The Commission seeks comment on the methodology in this document.
Should hex-9s covered by more than one provider have the same value to
each provider, or should the Commission adopt a different method that
allows for heterogenous support levels for such hex-9s? Should the
Commission instead apportion support based on another metric, such as
covered BSLs or population? Should hex-9s within the same geographic
area, such as a census tract or borough, all be assigned the same
value, regardless of whether or not a given hex-9 is covered by more
than one provider?
The Commission also seeks comment on whether to use this
methodology to determine support amounts by area for use in a
competitive--or alternative--mechanism for addressing duplicate support
in ACF Mobile Phase II. The Commission seeks comment on whether this
would be an effective methodology for determining duplicate support
amounts. Additionally, the Commission seeks comment on the
effectiveness of this methodology to calculate the amount of support to
be clawed back in the event that a provider serving areas deemed
ineligible for ACF, as set forth in the concurrently adopted Order, is
not able to--or chooses not to--serve comparable areas. Further, the
Commission asks whether it should use this or a similar hex-9-based
methodology to calculate the value of ACF Phase I commitments. Are
there other uses for this methodology in the mobile portion of the ACF?
Finally, if commenters have concern about this methodology, the
Commission seeks comment on alternative methodologies to calculate
support amounts for these particular areas. The Commission seeks
comment generally regarding how to determine the support amounts per
area.
The Commission seeks comment on the level of service that it should
expect from mobile providers that receive support under ACF Mobile
Phase II of the ACF. Since the adoption of the Alaska Plan Order, 81 FR
69696, October 7, 2016, mobile wireless technologies have advanced
significantly, and the Commission has moved toward supporting 5G-NR as
the standard for high-cost mobile-wireless deployment. Despite this,
the current Alaska Plan still supports 2G, 3G, and 4G LTE networks.
While the Commission recognizes that Alaska presents unique challenges
when deploying mobile networks, it also must recognize the advances in
mobile wireless technologies that have been made since the adoption of
the Alaska Plan; therefore the Commission tentatively concludes that
continuing to fund such obsolete technologies would be both inefficient
and contrary to the Commission's statutory mandate 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.'' As such, for ACF Mobile Phase II, the
Commission seeks comment on whether to set a goal of 5G-NR 7/1 Mbps or
whether to make this a requirement of ACF Mobile Phase II. Given that
4G LTE at 5/1 Mbps is already available in many parts of Alaska,
particularly in areas with duplicate support, the Commission believes
that this service level is achievable, and it seeks comment on this.
However, the Commission provides a preference for higher deployment
speeds when selecting winners in the competitive mechanisms, and
therefore it expects that providers will be incentivized to offer 5G-NR
35/3 Mbps services in areas where it is technically and financially
feasible. The Commission seeks comment on this approach. Alternatively,
should the Commission make 5G-NR 35/3 Mbps the technology and speed
goal (consistent with its approach for single-support areas by 2034, as
in the concurrently adopted Order)? Should the Commission make this a
requirement?
Additionally, if the Commission were to adopt a 5G-NR goal or
minimum standard, should there be areas where providers are allowed to
meet a lesser speed standard? For example, should areas with high
middle-mile costs be required to deploy 5G-NR but only be required to
meet a lower speed threshold, and if so, how would the Commission
determine areas with high transport costs? Should the goal or minimum
service requirements be lower for providers seeking to deploy in
unserved areas? In the alternative, should the Commission continue to
fund 4G LTE networks, and if so, under what conditions? If the
Commission adopts 5G-NR 7/1 Mbps as the goal or minimum performance
standard, how much time should it give carriers to upgrade their
networks to meet this new standard? Should the adopted service goal or
minimum deployment standard evolve over time to a higher standard so
that it does not become outdated?
The Commission seeks comment on the appropriate mechanism to
eliminate duplicate support in the mobile portion of the ACF. It is
generally not the policy of the Universal Service Fund (USF) to
subsidize competition in high-cost areas. Therefore, in the high-cost
program, the Commission has sought to eliminate duplicate support--the
provision of support to more than one competitive ETC in the same area.
In the Alaska Connect Fund Notice, the Commission expressed concern
that many areas were receiving duplicate support under the Alaska Plan.
To address the issue of duplicate support, in this document, the
Commission seeks comment on whether to adopt a competitive mechanism to
decide which competitive ETC should be awarded the support for a given
geographic area based on which provider proposes the best combination
of coverage and service offerings for each community. Under this
proposal, providers seeking to be chosen as the provider for a given
community will submit proposed coverage maps for the areas where more
than one provider currently receives support, as well as the
surrounding community where no provider currently offers service (i.e.,
unserved hex-9s within a larger geography that contains the duplicate
support hex-9s). Based on these coverage map offers, the competitive
mechanism would then determine which competitive ETC to support based
on which provider proposes to deploy the 5G network with the best
combination of speed and coverage to the duplicate-support areas and
surrounding unserved areas. The Commission seeks comment on this
approach.
As discussed in the concurrently adopted Order, in ACF Mobile Phase
I, the Commission limits support to mobile ETCs that participated in
the Alaska Plan, subject to other eligibility requirements. However,
for ACF Mobile Phase II, in order to maximize competition in the
competitive mechanism, the Commission seeks comment on whether to
permit any

[[Page 96169]]

competitive ETC, including competitive ETCs that do not already receive
support for mobile service in remote Alaska, to be eligible to
participate. The Commission believes that this approach would encourage
new mobile providers to emerge in Alaska, including those that are not
currently ETCs or that were not eligible for the Alaska Plan. The
Commission sees no reason why a mobile provider that meets all other
criteria to participate in a competitive process should be deemed
ineligible solely because it is not currently receiving Alaska Plan
support. The Commission tentatively concludes that this approach will
stretch its scarce universal service dollars further and result in
better service for Alaskans, and it seeks comment on this tentative
conclusion. The Commission seeks comment on whether these are the
appropriate eligibility criteria and whether any additional factors
should be considered.
As mentioned in this document, several current participants in the
Alaska Plan have failed to meet their commitments. In the concurrently
adopted Order, the Commission determined that an Alaska Plan mobile
provider participant may have its ACF support delayed, reduced, or may
be deemed ineligible from the ACF, if the Wireless Telecommunications
Bureau (WTB) determines that the provider has failed to comply with the
public interest obligations or other terms and conditions of the Alaska
Plan or its Alaska Plan commitments, or failed to meet a build-out
milestone. This determination--and delegation to WTB--extends to
eligibility to participate in the mechanisms the Commission discusses
in this document. In short, Alaska Plan providers that have been deemed
ineligible for ACF will be ineligible for ACF Mobile Phase II support.
The Commission seeks comment on this approach. Should there be a
process by which an ineligible provider under these criteria could be
once again deemed eligible?
As discussed in the concurrently adopted Order, the Commission will
determine whether an area is ineligible, a duplicate-support area, a
single-support area, or unserved at the hex-9 level. The Commission
seeks comment on whether only eligible duplicate support and unserved
hex-9s should be eligible for support in the competitive mechanism.
Under this proposal, single support hex-9s and ineligible hex-9s will
both be ineligible for support in the competitive mechanism. The
Commission also seeks comment on whether to aggregate eligible hex-9s
into census tracts as the minimum geographic unit for which it will
accept competing offers. Should the Commission use an alternative
Census geography for accepting competing offers? Alternatively, should
eligible hex-9s be aggregated into a lower resolution (larger) hexagon
such as a hex-7? The Commission seeks comment on these proposals.
Based on the previously discussed methodology for determining the
amount of support associated with each hex-9, the Commission seeks
comment on whether to establish a budget for each census tract with
duplicate support areas as follows. After determining the support for
each duplicate support hex-9, based on the disaggregation of statewide
support methodology the Commission adopts, it seeks comment on whether
to establish a total duplicate support amount for each census tract
with duplicate support areas that is equal to the sum, over all
duplicate support hex-9s, of the calculated support amount for each
duplicate support hex-9. If the duplicate support amount associated
with each hex-9 is different by provider based on the adopted
disaggregation methodology, the Commission seeks comment on whether the
total support amount associated with a tract with duplicate support
areas should be equal to the sum of the maximum amounts of duplicate
support any provider receives for the eligible duplicate support hex-
9s. In this case, the Commission seeks comment on whether to use the
sum of these maximum amounts so that it ensures support is sufficient
to maintain the existing available coverage within the duplicate
support areas. Would this approach provide sufficient support to, at a
minimum, maintain existing coverage? Would this level of support allow
the awarded provider to enhance its coverage within the supported hex-
9s to provide 5G-NR services? Would an alternative budget such as the
total support associated with all supported providers in the duplicate
support areas be a more appropriate amount, and if so, why?
For each census tract with duplicate support areas, the Commission
seek comment on whether an eligible ETC could submit a proposal to be
the sole recipient of the duplicate support amount for the census
tract. Under this approach, a competitive ETC's proposal would consist
of a proposed coverage map for a census tract that complies with the
BDC mobile coverage data requirements and must predict 5G-NR coverage
in an outdoor stationary environment. The Commission seeks comment on
whether eligible ETCs may propose to cover a subset of the eligible
areas within a tract with 5G-NR 7/1 Mbps service or 5G-NR 35/3 Mbps
service, and that they would be required to submit separate coverage
maps for each proposed service. The Commission seeks comment on these
proposals. In order to ensure that coverage map proposals are
comparable, should the Commission set uniform propagation model
parameters for all submitted coverage maps? Alternatively, could an
eligible ETC's bid be more general within a biddable area, such that it
promises to deploy to a certain number of hex-9s with a specified level
of service, but does not specify exactly which hex-9s?
For each census tract receiving coverage offers, the Commission
seeks comment on whether to evaluate the proposals and determine a
single winner for each area based on a combination of the scope of
proposed geographic coverage and service levels to the eligible areas
within the tract, as determined by submitted coverage maps. The
Commission seeks comment on this approach. Specifically, based on the
coverage maps submitted, the Commission seeks comment on whether it
should calculate a weighted percent coverage of the eligible hex-9s in
the census tract for each proposal received and award the entire
duplicate support amount for the tract to the ETC that proposes the
highest weighted percent coverage of eligible hex-9s. In this
calculation, hex-9s would receive different weights depending on
whether they would be covered with 7/1 Mbps or 35/3 Mbps 5G-NR service
under a proposal. For the weights, the Commission seeks comment on
whether 35/3 Mbps 5G-NR service should receive a weight equal to 1 and
7/1 Mbps 5G-NR service should receive a weight equal to .9 when
calculating the weighted coverage percentage used to evaluate competing
proposals.
For example, suppose that there are ten hex-9s in a tract with a
total land area of approximately 1 square mile--eight eligible hex-9s
and two ineligible hex-9s, one of which is served at 5G-NR at 7/1 Mbps
minimum speed by an unsubsidized provider and one of which is a single
support area. Suppose that two ETCs submit coverage maps for this tract
and the first ETC proposes to serve 2 of the eligible hex-9s at 5G-NR
35/3 Mbps minimum speed service, and 3 of the eligible hex-9s at 5G-NR
at 7/1 Mbps minimum speed service. In this case, under the weighting
scheme, the weighted coverage percentage for this offer would be
approximately equal to 47%. Further suppose that the second ETC
proposes to serve 6 eligible hex-9s

[[Page 96170]]

with 5G-NR at 7/1 Mbps minimum speed. The approximate score for this
second proposal would be 54%, and therefore, this second ETC would be
the winner of the budget assigned to this tract in the competitive
mechanism.
Minimum Acceptable Offers. The Commission also seeks comment on the
minimum acceptable weighted coverage percentage for an offer and
whether it should be the weighted coverage percentage that would be
implied by the current combined service areas of all the supported ETCs
in the eligible hex-9s assuming 5G-NR 7/1 Mbps service in the hex-9s
where such services are currently unavailable, and the actual 5G-NR
deployed service in hex-9s where 5G-NR 7/1 Mbps or 35/3 Mbps services
are deployed. For example, in the previous example, if two eligible
hex-9s had 4G LTE 5/1 Mbps service, one had 5G-NR 7/1 Mbps and one had
5G-NR 35/3 Mbps, then the minimum acceptable coverage percentage for an
offer would be approximately 37%. The Commission seeks comment on
whether, if a provider submits an offer below the minimum coverage
percentage or any other minimum criteria the Commission establishes,
WTB should notify the provider and provide one opportunity for the
provider to correct its bid. After this process, offers that remain
below this minimum coverage percentage would be rejected. The
Commission seeks comment on this approach.
Tie Breaker. Finally, in the event that more than one proposal
should tie when calculating the highest weighted coverage percentage,
the Commission seeks comment on what procedure should be used to break
such a tie. Should the provider with the current highest weighted
coverage percentage be awarded the support given that this provider has
demonstrated a willingness and ability to serve the broader community
with the most advanced mobile wireless services? Should the tie be
broken at random? Should offers also include the lowest support amount
below the available budget that the provider would be willing to accept
in order to deploy the proposed service and, only in the case of ties
for highest weighted coverage percentage, the provider with the lowest
support amount would win and receive the support amount requested? To
the extent a provider already receives support in the ACF, should the
Commission consider the progress carriers have made in their single-
support areas as indicated in the December 31, 2029 progress reports?
The Commission seeks comment on these proposals for accepting and
evaluating competing offers in order to resolve duplicate support.
Should the scoring of offers include other criteria besides proposed
geographic coverage and service levels? For example, should the number
of covered BSLs and road miles be explicitly included in the scoring
formula? Are the weights the Commission seeks comment on for the two
service levels appropriate? Should more weight be given to 5G-NR 35/3
Mbps service? Should other service levels be considered? Should
providers be allowed to submit multiple offers that include a minimum
support amount the provider would be willing to accept to deploy the
proposed service level of the offer, and if so, how should the
Commission trade off coverage and requested support when determining
winners? Should the minimum coverage percentage in a census tract
instead be set at the highest weighted coverage percentage of any
single provider in the duplicate-support area under a minimum 5G-NR 7/1
Mbps service level assumption? Should the Commission also impose a
minimum acceptable criterion on offers that all areas that currently
have service (e.g., a hex-9) would need to still have service under any
proposal that it would accept as a valid proposal? Instead of only
evaluating offers based on the eligible duplicate support and unserved
areas within a tract, should the Commission also include ineligible
single support areas within the tract when calculating the score in
order to ensure that service is maintained to these areas? The
Commission seeks comment on these questions and on any modifications
that should be made to the methodology for evaluating competing offers
and determining winners.
Support Phase-Down. The Commission seeks comment on whether
providers that are not chosen as the sole recipient of the duplicate-
support amount within a tract should have their support phased down
over two years. Specifically, the Commission seeks comment on whether
losing providers should receive two-thirds of their support for the
first twelve months following the announcement of winners, one-third of
their support for the next twelve months, and zero support for the
tract thereafter. The Commission seeks comment on this approach and any
alternatives. Is a phase-down of support appropriate? Is two years a
sufficient length of time for the phase-down?
The Commission also seeks comment on an alternative mechanism that
would assign support to only a single provider if an eligible area is
covered by two or more Alaska Plan mobile provider participants. At a
high level, this approach would take into consideration the existing
coverage of each supported provider within a potentially larger area
that includes the duplicate-support area--balancing various factors--
and award support for the duplicate-support area to the provider that
demonstrates the ``best'' coverage. Unlike the competitive mechanism,
this approach would look at past service deployments rather than
evaluating offers for future service deployments. For a currently
supported provider that is not selected to continue receiving support
for an area under the alternative mechanism, the Commission would make
available an option to negotiate a revised plan with WTB that would
allow it to continue to receive the same or similar level of support in
exchange for serving different, but comparable, currently unserved
areas. The Commission seeks comment on various aspects of this
approach.
Evaluation Areas. In the concurrently adopted Order, the Commission
defines duplicate-support areas as eligible areas covered by two or
more Alaska Plan participants. For this alternative mechanism, the
Commission seeks comment on criteria for deeming a potentially larger
and more standardized area as the basis for evaluating the service
provided by each of multiple supported carriers and selecting a single
carrier to receive support for the eligible duplicate-support hex-9s
within that area. Specifically, the Commission would consider a census
tract as the evaluation area, and it seeks comment on whether census
tracts would be large enough to provide sufficient scale for the
selected provider but not so large as to create overlaps with areas
where other providers may be receiving duplicate support. Would census
blocks be a more reasonable size as evaluation areas? Alternatively,
should the evaluation area be constructed based on the particular
duplicate support situation, such as an aggregation of smaller adjacent
census geographies, such as blocks? The Commission seeks comment on
these options and generally on the criteria to be considered when
determining an evaluation area that includes the hex-9s deemed to have
duplicate support and the adjacent coverage areas of the supported
providers.
Evaluating Mobile Technology. The Commission also seeks comment on
how to evaluate a subsidized provider's service in a covered hex-9 with
respect to mobile technology. For example, should the Commission
differentiate among four categories of service in a hex-9: 2G and 3G
service; 4G-LTE; 5G-

[[Page 96171]]

NR at 7/1 Mbps; and 5G-NR at 35/3 Mbps or better? If the component hex-
11s in a hex-9 indicate service of different mobile technologies,
should the Commission deem the hex-9 as covered by the most frequently
indicated technology in the covered hex-11s, or in the case of an equal
split between mobile technologies, of the more advanced technology
offered by the provider? Should the Commission instead not
differentiate between mobile technologies in evaluating coverage, and
consider an area either served or not? Alternatively, should the
Commission differentiate among fewer than four mobile technologies, and
if so, what should they be? Should the Commission use a different
method to assign a technology to a hex-9 when the component hex-11s
show different mobile technologies?
The Commission seeks comment on whether and, if so, how to weight
differently the hex-9s in an evaluation area that are deemed to show
coverage by different technologies. For example, if half of the hex-9s
in a provider's footprint in an area show coverage at 3G speeds, and
the other half receive 4G LTE service, should the Commission weight the
4G-LTE areas more heavily when evaluating the overall coverage of a
supported provider? For this purpose, the Commission suggests weighting
2G and 3G service as .75, 4G LTE service at 1, 5G-NR at 7/1 Mbps at
1.15; and 5G-NR at 35/3 Mbps and higher speeds of service at 1.25.
These weights would essentially use 4G LTE service as a benchmark, with
slower service carrying less weight while faster service would count
more heavily in the evaluation of a provider's existing coverage. If
commenters disagree with this approach or with the suggested weights,
the Commission asks that they suggest a different approach or different
weights and explain why they believe their alternative approach is
preferable. As an additional weight, should the Commission evaluate
progress of upgraded deployments demonstrated in the December 31, 2029
progress reports for single-support areas, and if so, how should it do
so?
Superior Coverage Calculation. In order to compare two or more
supported providers that serve an area, this approach--on which the
Commission seeks comment--would consider their technology-weighted
service performance and the geographic extent of their footprint. The
Commission would, for each provider, determine an area-specific score
calculated as the sum of the weighted hex-9s that they serve. As a
simple example, a provider that serves 1000 hex-9s in an evaluation
area at 3G speeds would have a score of 1000*.75, or 750. Another
provider that serves 800 hex-9s in the evaluation area with 4G-LTE
would have a score of 800. The Commission suggests these two criteria--
coverage within the geographic evaluation area and technology--because
they provide for a simple, measurable, and transparent method for
comparing coverage that captures essential components of a provider's
service offering. How should the Commission select a single provider if
two or more providers cover 100% of the evaluation area at the same
technology, or otherwise have a tied score? Should the Commission then
look to a broader area to evaluate the providers' coverage, such as the
census block group, census tract level, or an alternate geographic
area?
The Commission is mindful, however, that there are other aspects of
a supported provider's performance that also matter to consumers.
Should other factors, such as price or reliability, be considered in a
supported provider's score? Would it be feasible to find standardized,
measurable, and transparent ways to incorporate these or other factors?
Would consideration of any such factors contribute significantly to the
fairness of the comparison across duplicate supported providers? Will
the requirements in ACF Mobile Phase I serve to ensure that a provider
receiving support as of the start of ACF Mobile Phase II already meets
basic price and/or reliability (or other) criteria, mitigating any need
to incorporate the criteria explicitly into the scoring approach? The
Commission seeks comment on these aspects of the approach.
Under this approach, the provider with the highest score in the
evaluation area would be selected to continue to receive support for
the previously duplicate support area. The Commission would calculate
the support amount as set forth in this document, where generally
support for a provider would be based on the support rate of the
provider with the smaller footprint. Under this approach, the single
winner of support for hex-9s that it and another provider both
previously covered would receive a support amount based on the number
of previous duplicate support hex-9s in the evaluation area. Its
support amount for areas within the evaluation area for which it was a
single-supported provider--for which it has guaranteed support through
December 31, 2034--would not be affected. That is, the winning provider
would receive support at a new rate for the previous duplicate support
areas and continue to receive support at its existing rate for any hex-
9s for which it has been receiving support as a single provider.
Alternative Evaluation Criteria. Rather than evaluate a provider's
current performance based on the extent of coverage within the
geographic evaluation area and the technology and speed that it offers,
the Commission seeks comment on alternative means of evaluation that
would select a single supported provider based solely on which of the
duplicate support recipients offers service to the largest number of
hex-9s within the evaluation area. The Commission seeks comment on this
and other possible approaches that are consistent with the actions of
the concurrently adopted Order.
Performance Requirements. Once selected as the winning provider for
the evaluation area, the Commission would require that the provider
meet the minimum standard of deployment for support under ACF Mobile
Phase II of 5G-NR 7/1 Mbps measured in an outdoor stationary
environment.
Loss of Support. Under this approach, on which the Commission seeks
comment, providers that lose their support in a duplicate-support area
would be subject to phase down of support. Providers would lose support
subject to a phase down schedule of 2/3 support for the first twelve
months, 1/3 support for the next twelve months, and zero support
thereafter. In the alternative, the Commission seeks comment on
allowing providers that lose duplicate support to deploy to comparable
unserved hex-9s in other areas of Alaska. Under this approach,
providers that have their performance plans approved by providing
comparable service to hex-9s in an uncovered location would have their
lost support resume from the date that the performance plan is
approved. The Commission seeks comment on this approach. Should there
be any differences in the loss of support approach depending on how the
provider loses support between the competitive and alternative
mechanism?
In the Alaska Plan Order, 81 FR 69696, October 7, 2016, the
Commission reallocated funds going to support the provision of mobile
service in unserved remote areas in Alaska and decided to distribute
those reallocated funds through a reverse auction process. In the
Alaska Plan Order, unserved areas were defined as ``those census blocks
where less than 15% of the population within the census block was
within any mobile carrier's coverage area.'' By December 31, 2026, that
allocation will amount to $162 million. The Commission provided that
support for unserved areas would

[[Page 96172]]

be distributed through a reverse auction process, subject to the
competitive bidding rules codified at Part 1 Subpart AA of the
Commission's rules. The Alaska Plan Order stated that ``[a]ny
competitive ETC, including competitive ETCs that do not otherwise
receive support for mobile service in remote Alaska, may bid in the
auction to receive annual support through the remainder of the Plan
term to extend service to areas that do not have commercial mobile
radio service as of December 31, 2014.'' The Commission wishes to
refresh the record on this approach and update the definition of
unserved areas. The Commission seeks comment on a potential auction
mechanism for assigning support to provide service in areas that are
currently unserved by any provider. The Commission first addresses
several high-level program elements and then describe a reverse auction
mechanism, which would use competitive bidding to determine how best to
apportion the available budget to maximize new service to Alaskans in
places where they live, work, and travel that have heretofore been
ignored. The auction mechanism on which the Commission seeks comment
would leverage competition across areas to determine the areas that
will receive support through the auction and, in areas where more than
one bidder is competing, the auction would additionally leverage
competition between bidders to determine a single winner of support.
The Commission seeks comment on continuing with the prior decision
to open up the unserved areas auction to any competitive ETC certified
in Alaska at the commencement of the auction, including competitive
ETCs that do not already receive support for mobile service in remote
Alaska. The Commission suggests this broad eligibility requirement in
order to attract a wide pool of potential service providers,
recognizing that the technical and business approaches consistent with
providing service to areas that have remained unserved may require
expertise and technology different than that of the carriers that
traditionally have provided service in Alaska. In addition, the
potential availability of new middle-mile capacity may make it feasible
for new entities to enter the market in these (and potentially other)
eligible areas.
The Commission seeks comment on a term of support of eight years,
which is the same period of time that mobile providers will receive
support in single-support areas. This will allow time for mobile-
support recipients to buildout and maintain a communications network
for remote communities and reassess any ongoing support needs to these
areas. After that eight-year period, the Commission would reassess any
ongoing support needs.
The Commission also seeks comment on the public-interest
obligations that a winning bidder will have in exchange for receiving
ACF support for serving a previously unserved area. For example, the
Commission would require the winning provider to offer 5G-NR service at
7/1 Mbps to at least 85% of the eligible unserved hex-9s in the area by
December 31, 2034. The Commission seeks comment on these standards with
respect to technology and speed, geographic coverage, and timing.
Should the Commission instead establish performance obligations in
stages, for example, requiring less geographic coverage at a 2- or 3-
year benchmark, more coverage at 5 years, with full coverage required
by year 6, or other staged requirements? Should the Commission require
a greater or lower technology and speed, or allow a mix of such? Should
obligations vary according to the type of service to be provided, such
as requiring greater coverage if provided by satellite, or less
coverage depending upon access to middle-mile?
The Alaska Plan Order defined an unserved area as ``[a] census
block [ ] where less than 15% of the population within the census block
was within any mobile carrier's coverage area,'' as of December 31,
2014. The Commission finds this definition to be out of date. The
Commission seeks comment on an alternative approach whereby it would
first determine an area's eligibility at the hex-9 level, rather than
at the census-block level, consistent with the concurrently adopted
Order regarding areas receiving support. In order to determine that a
hex-9 is unserved for purposes of the auction, BDC data would have to
indicate that no carrier provides mobile data service as shown at the
centroids of 70% of the component hex-11s that comprise the hex-9. The
Commission would also determine whether an area includes at least one
BSL (as defined by the Fabric) for the hex-9. If a hex-9 is deemed
uncovered, contains at least one BSL and is otherwise eligible for ACF
support, then the hex-9 would be deemed unserved.
However, because hex-9s are very small relative to the size of
mobile deployment areas, the Commission intends that participants in a
reverse auction would bid at the level of a larger geographic area,
such as a census block, census block group, or census tract. For the
larger geographic area to be considered unserved, the Commission would
require that 85% of the eligible hex-9s in the larger geographic area
be deemed unserved. The Commission seeks comment on the use of census
block, census block group, or census tract as the biddable area for the
auction. Is there another well-defined geographic area that would be
more appropriate for an auction to assign support to currently unserved
areas in Alaska? Would a larger hexagonal area in the H3 system, such
as a hex-5 (approximately 253 sq. kms) or hex-6 (approximately 36 sq.
kms.) be preferred? Biddable areas based on a larger H3 system hexagon
would be of a more uniform size than census tracts or blocks. Would
potential bidders consider that an advantage? Is it important that the
geographic areas used in this reverse auction be the same as those used
for any support mechanism for areas that are currently served by at
least one subsidized provider? Are there any classes of hex-9s without
at least one BSL that should be considered eligible for support if
uncovered?
Second, the Commission seeks comment on whether there is a minimum
speed or technology level above which a hex-9 would be deemed served.
In the 5G Fund Second Report and Order, an area is eligible if there is
not an unsubsidized 5G provider of 7/1 Mbps service in an outdoor
stationary environment; however, the 5G Fund Second Report and Order's
goal is to bring 5G to areas without 5G, instead of bringing 5G to
unserved areas. Given that the Alaska Plan's goal was to get to 4G LTE,
the Commission thinks a number of otherwise served areas will be
defined as unserved if it uses the threshold from the 5G Fund Second
Report and Order. Rather, the Commission suggests that eligible areas
with no service, not even voice service, will be deemed unserved for
the unserved areas auction in Alaska. The Commission seeks comment on
the speed and technology threshold that, if unavailable, should be
considered for an area to be deemed unserved.
Are there other approaches to determining eligible areas and
biddable areas for the reverse auction that would allow for an
accurate, transparent, and careful evaluation of an area's suitability
to be considered for support through a reverse auction? Should the
Commission consider criteria other than those it has laid out to
determine whether an area is considered eligible for the unserved areas
auction? More specifically, are there alternatives to certain elements
of the means of defining eligible unserved areas that would be
preferable?

[[Page 96173]]

In the Alaska Plan Order, the Commission reallocated funds for use
in an auction for support to unserved areas. By December 31, 2026 that
allocation will amount to approximately $162 million. The Commission
seeks comment on whether this amount should be the maximum amount of
support that can be assigned in the reverse auction. The reverse
auction format that the Commission sets forth would assign support so
as to maximize the additional coverage that can be supported with the
budget. The Commission seeks comment on whether this amount will
achieve the intended purpose. If commenters contend that additional
support is needed, the Commission seeks comment on that amount and if
there is support going to mobile wireless in Alaska that can be
reallocated for unserved areas.
In the Alaska Plan Order, the Commission stated that the reverse
auction will be subject to the competitive bidding rules codified at
Part 1 Subpart AA of the Commission's rules. Consistent with this,
under the competitive bidding approach, the Commission would use a
multi-round, descending clock (reverse) auction to identify the areas
that would receive support, the providers that would receive support
and the amount of support that each winning bidder would be eligible to
receive. The descending clock auction would consist of sequential
bidding rounds according to an announced schedule providing the start
time and closing time of each bidding round. The Commission would use a
reverse auction format similar to that used for the Rural Digital
Opportunity Fund and the Connect America Fund Phase II auctions.
Bidding and Support Metric. Under this approach, bids in the
reverse auction would be accepted and winning bids would be determined
based on a price per eligible hex-9. Accordingly, the price clock would
be denominated in terms of dollars per eligible hex-9. Each biddable
area would be associated with a number of eligible hex-9s, and support
amounts would be determined by multiplying the number of eligible hex-
9s in the area by the relevant price per hex-9. The opening clock price
times the number of eligible hex-9s in a biddable area would indicate
the highest support amount that a bidder could receive for the area.
The same clock price would apply to all eligible areas.
The Commission also seeks comment on whether an alternative bidding
and support metric, such as the number of BSLs in the eligible hex-9s
in the biddable area, would be preferable to using the number of
eligible hex-9s in the area. Under this approach, the Commission would
use the number of hex-9s because hex-9s are a standard unit of area
coverage (equal to .105 square kilometers) and are small enough to
enable a granular evaluation of whether there are locations--
indications that mobile coverage would be used--in the area. Moreover,
using the number of hex-9s in a biddable area as a metric is consistent
with the approach the Commission adopts in this document for ACF Mobile
Phase I and also seeks comment on for other elements of the ACF.
Accepting Bids and Identifying Winning Bids. In the initial round
of the auction mechanism, each bidder would indicate the biddable areas
to which it is willing to provide service meeting the specified
performance requirements in exchange for a support amount implied by
the opening clock price. In each subsequent bidding round, the price
clock would be decremented and each bidder would indicate the areas to
which it is willing to provide service at the lower implied support
amount.
Under this reverse auction mechanism on which the Commission seeks
comment, after every bidding round, the bidding system would calculate
the total requested implied support for the areas that have bids at the
current clock price (counting each area with a bid only once). If this
amount is greater than the budget, then the price clock would be
decremented again, and another bidding round would follow. After the
first bidding round in which the total requested support is equal to or
less than the budget--that is, the budget ``clearing round''--the
bidding system would begin to assign support using a ``second-price
rule.'' A second-price rule would ensure that each winning bidder
receives a support amount for an area that is at least as great as the
support amount implied by its bid price. Bidding would continue with a
new bidding round at a decremented clock price for areas that receive
more than one bid at the clock price in the clearing round, since at
least two bidders are still competing for support to that area. Such
rounds would continue until, for each such area, there is at most one
bid at the clock price. The lowest bid for the area would be the
winning bid, and support amounts again would be determined using a
second-price rule.
The Commission seeks comment on this general approach to a
multiple-round, descending clock auction to assign support to areas in
Alaska that are currently deemed unserved. If the Commission moves
forward with this approach, as is the typical procedure for Commission
auctions, it would delegate authority to WTB and the Office of
Economics and Analytics to release a further Public Notice specifying
in more detail the proposed rules and procedures of an auction
mechanism that follows the general format the Commission sets forth
here. At that point, the Commission would seek comment on the specific
elements of the reverse auction. After taking into account the
submitted comments, the Commission would release another Public Notice
that lays out the specific rules and procedures to be used in the
auction and announces the availability of bidder education materials.
The Commission notes that the reverse auction could establish a
level of support for unserved eligible areas through competition among
bidders based on their assessment of the costs to deploy mobile service
in these areas. Could the results of this reverse auction to assign
support to unserved areas in Alaska help the Commission consider a more
appropriate level of support for participants already serving existing
areas in Alaska (single support areas or duplicative support areas),
given that this support was initially established based on frozen costs
of wireline deployment?
Noncompetitive Alternative. Is there a reason to deviate from this
reverse auction approach? Are there considerations that would argue in
favor of another approach, and if so, what are they and how would they
affect the determinations of eligible areas?
Retail Consumer Subscribership. In the Alaska Plan, the Commission
has found instances where some mobile provider participants had very
few customers, and in one example, a provider claimed to have only one
mobile data subscriber. In such instances, the Commission is concerned
that it has been providing support in areas where subscribers are not
subscribing to the services.
The Commission seeks comment on whether it should require that all
ACF mobile providers receiving support must have a minimum of five
mobile data subscribers per census designated place and be able to
provide proof of those subscribers upon request by WTB, starting with
the due date of the first milestone. For this purpose, each subscriber
would be one person, not directly employed by the provider, paying the
publicly advertised rate for the mobile data service. Providers unable
to provide address-level data of these subscribers upon demand after
December 31, 2029, may have a proportional amount of support

[[Page 96174]]

withheld as not having effective service in the area. Providers may not
take more than 14 days to satisfy any subscribership requests by WTB.
Census designated places with fewer than 20 people, based on most
recent census estimates, are exempt from this requirement. The
Commission seeks comment on this proposal. Would this approach help
guard against waste, fraud, and abuse in the mobile portion of the ACF?
Would, and if so, how would this approach materially affect the goal to
ensure that mobile providers are covering where Alaskans travel? How
much of the census designated place would need to be covered before
such a condition would be applicable?
In the Alaska Connect Fund Notice, the Commission sought comment on
whether it should use the ACF to encourage the deployment of Open RAN
in mobile networks, and if so how. The Commission has previously noted
that networks deploying Open RAN ``have the potential to address
national security and other concerns that the Commission and other
federal stakeholders have raised in recent years about network
integrity and supply chain reliability.'' In its comments, Alaska
Telecom Association, the only commenter on this issue, argued that the
Commission should avoid any mandates and that providers should have
flexibility in deploying such network technologies in Alaska. The
Commission has since concluded that it is in the public interest and
serves national priorities to use universal service funds to
incentivize the voluntary inclusion of Open RAN in mobile networks
deployed with 5G Fund support. In the 5G Fund Second Report and Order,
the Commission, recognizing the significant public interest benefits of
Open RAN networks, and to encourage the voluntary inclusion of Open RAN
in networks that are deployed with 5G Fund support, offered 5G Fund
support recipients additional support and an extension of time to
deploy networks with Open RAN technologies. The Commission seeks
comment on whether it should consider similar incentives for ACF
recipients deploying 5G networks. Based on what the Commission adopted
in the concurrently adopted Order for single-support areas and
duplicate-support areas under ACF Mobile Phase I and are proposing to
adopt for ACF Mobile Phase II, should the Commission adopt similar
incentives to provide additional funding and extension of build-out
obligations for providers that voluntarily agree to deploy Open RAN in
Alaska for all ACF mobile provider recipients?
In this document, the Commission seeks comment on whether ACF
providers of mobile or fixed service must obtain the consent of the
relevant Tribal government(s) for new deployments, prior to being
authorized to receive support for those areas. The Tribal consent
requirement is exclusively predicated on a government-to-government
relationship, based on the Tribes recognized from the Tribe Act of
1994. To promote and support Tribal sovereignty and self-determination,
the Commission tentatively concludes that adopting a Tribal consent
requirement in ACF rules is consistent with its long-standing
recognition that engagement between Tribal governments and
communications providers, and the Commission recognizes particularly
that early engagement is an important element to promote the successful
deployment and provision of service on Tribal lands. The Commission
seeks comment generally on this tentative conclusion and how it may be
implemented.
In the Alaska Connect Fund Notice, the Commission reiterated its
commitment to working with Tribes and Tribal leaders, and sought
comment on considerations with respect to participation in the ACF by
Indian Tribes, Tribal governments, and residents on Tribal lands. In
recognition of the fact that engagement between Tribal nations and
service providers ``is vitally important to the successful deployment
and provision of service,'' the Commission has reaffirmed the
importance of its obligation that all high-cost recipients serving
Tribal lands demonstrate annually that they have meaningfully engaged
with Tribal governments in their supported areas. Several commenters
support additional Tribal consultation and Tribal engagement, and
others argue the Commission should require Alaska high-cost recipients
to obtain written authorizing resolutions from a Tribal government or
Tribal entity under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971
(ANCSA) prior to receiving support for projects proposed to be built on
Tribal lands.
In the recent 5G Fund Second Report and Order and Second Further
Notice, 89 FR 76016, September 17, 2024, the Commission explored the
idea of requiring a winning bidder in the 5G Fund Phase I auction to
demonstrate during the long-form application process, and prior to
being authorized to receive support, that it has obtained the consent
of the relevant Tribal government(s) for any necessary access to deploy
network facilities using its 5G Fund support on Tribal lands within the
area(s) of its winning bid(s). The Commission tentatively concluded
that adopting a Tribal consent requirement in its 5G Fund rules is
consistent with its long-standing recognition that engagement between
Tribal governments and communications providers, particularly early
engagement, is an important element to promote the successful
deployment and provision of service on Tribal lands. The Commission
envisioned a Tribal consent requirement for the 5G Fund as a
continuation of its commitment to ensuring Tribal engagement by service
providers that receive high-cost universal service support and in
furtherance of the Commission's Policy Statement establishing a
government-to-government relationship with Tribes. Additionally, in the
5G Fund Second Report and Order and Second Further Notice, the
Commission looked to the Tribal consent requirements of its Tribal
Lands Bidding Credit (TLBC) as a guide and discussed including a
requirement that applicants for 5G Fund support to provide service on
Tribal lands submit a certification from the Tribal government(s) that
it has granted any required consent.
The Commission tentatively concludes that it should require Tribal
consent for deployment of new facilities for mobile providers
participating in the ACF and any new deployments that may be authorized
under Fixed ACFs and seeks comment on how it could implement this
requirement. The Commission seeks comment on what it should consider as
deployment of new facilities for Tribal consent purposes. Should the
Commission use any of the existing high-cost universal service Tribal
engagement requirements to develop the criteria necessary to evidence
Tribal consent in order to provide more consistency and predictability
for both Tribal governments and service providers? The Commission seeks
comment on any other consent requirements that will help provide
equitable provision of ACF support for mobile and fixed broadband
service using new facilities located on Tribal lands and that would
benefit Tribal communities in Alaska.
In the Alaska Connect Fund Report and Order, 89 FR 25147, April 10,
2024, supra, the Commission reminded recipients of high-cost support
serving Tribal Lands that they are required to have annual discussions
with Tribal governments that include feasibility and sustainability
planning and compliance with applicable Tribal requirements. The
Commission seeks comment on

[[Page 96175]]

whether it should consider additional or different Tribal engagement
requirements under Sec. 54.313(a)(5) of the Commission's rules for ACF
fixed and mobile support recipients.
The Commission seeks comment on how compliance with a Tribal
consent requirement may be demonstrated and verified by the Commission.
In the 5G Fund Second Report Order and Second Further Notice, the
Commission also sought comment on whether it should include parameters
similar to the those that the Commission includes for a winning bidder
that is applying for a TLBC to demonstrate its compliance with any
Tribal consent requirement, including a requirement for submission of a
certification from the Tribal government(s) that it has granted any
required Tribal consent. Such a required certification of Tribal
consent could include: the signature of an official of the Tribal
Government and their title; a statement that the Tribal government has
not and will not enter into an exclusive contract with the applicant to
preclude entry by other carriers and will not unreasonably discriminate
among wireless carriers seeking to provide service on the eligible
Tribal land; and a statement that the Tribal government will, as
applicable, permit the applicant to locate and deploy facilities on the
Tribal land consistent with ACF public interest obligations and
performance requirements. Would using the TLBC certification model
adequately reflect the contours of Tribal government consent in this
context? Under this model, once the certifications from the applicant
and the consent of the Tribal government(s) being served are received
and reviewed by the Commission and determined to be consistent with the
ACF rules, support may be authorized. What adjustments to this model
should be made if it is used? Should a process such as the TLBC
certification process be adopted? The Commission seeks comment on how
it might be able to incorporate flexibility in such a process.
If the Commission does adopt a Tribal consent requirement, when
should that consent be obtained for the purposes of the ACF? How would
the Commission's requirement be impacted by the Broadband Equity Access
and Deployment (BEAD) requirement? Would the Commission need to adopt a
specific Tribal consent dispute resolution process? How could the
Commission assist in the Tribal consent dispute resolution process? Did
any issues arise with respect to Tribal engagement or access to Tribal
lands for deployments during the course of the Alaska Plan that can be
improved upon? Given Tribal sovereignty, how should the Commission
address circumstances in which a Tribal government neither declines nor
provides consent? What are the costs and burdens of such requirements
to providers? Should different requirements be made for mobile support
in Alaska versus fixed support?
In terms of who must provide consent, the Commission recognizes
that the question of Tribal land management and sovereignty in Alaska
is unique in many respects. All of Alaska is considered Tribal land for
purposes of the universal service fund programs. Unlike the lower 48
states, Alaska's Tribal lands are not held and managed by the Bureau of
Indian Affairs (BIA). Rather, its Tribal lands are held and managed by
Alaska Native Regional Corporations. Twelve years after Alaska was
granted statehood in 1959, the ANCSA was passed into law. ANCSA sought
to address the ``immediate need for a fair and just settlement of all
claims by Natives and Native groups of Alaska.'' ANCSA did this by
extinguishing all ``aboriginal titles'' and divided Alaska into twelve
distinct regions and for-profit corporations. Each Native Alaskan was
enrolled in one of the corporations; enrollment was determined in a
tiered manner using the Native's region of residency as of 1970, region
of birth, or region of ancestor birth; and through this enrollment the
Native Alaskan was listed as a shareholder of a corporation. In other
words, much of the land claims of the Alaska Native Villages are
managed by the for-profit Alaska corporations, whose shareholders are
often comprised by many different federally recognized Tribes.
Deployment of advanced communications services provided by the ACF will
cross and cover these lands, as they did in the Alaska Plan.
Given these unique aspects of Tribal land management in Alaska, the
Commission tentatively concludes that an ACF recipient seeking to
deploy new facilities on Tribal lands must obtain consent from the
appropriate Tribal entity. Is the appropriate Tribal entity the
relevant Alaska Native Village(s) recognized by the BIA? The Commission
notes that federally recognized Tribes have a government-to-government
relationship with the United States and are eligible to receive certain
protections, services, and benefits by virtue of their federally
recognized status. While the Commission's rules with respect to Tribal
eligibility in various contexts vary somewhat, they universally limit
eligibility to those Tribes that are ``federally-recognized.'' The
Commission also seeks comment regarding the role of the Alaska Native
Corporations as they relate to Tribal consent requirements of it.
In addition, the Commission seeks comment on how to address the
fact that many Alaska Native Villages do not have defined boundaries
but are assigned into Alaska Native Village Statistical Areas (ANVSA)
by the Census Bureau, and that much of Alaska lies outside these areas,
which opens the possibility to multiple claims of sovereignty. In Sec.
54.5, the Commission defines Tribal lands for the purposes of the high-
cost support as including ``Alaska Native regions established pursuant
to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (85 Stat. 688).'' However,
Alaska Native regions often contain many different Tribal entities, and
given the size of the Alaska Native regions, several of the Tribal
entities in the respective Alaska Native region may not be physically
located near the deployment in a region. Should the Tribal consent
process be limited to new deployments or buildouts where the facilities
placement occurs within the census boundaries of an ANVSA, as this
situation would clearly identify that a particular Tribal entity is
directly affected by a deployment? The Commission seeks comment
generally on these issues.
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 invites comment on any benefits (if any) that may
be associated with the proposals and issues discussed herein.
Specifically, the Commission seeks comment on how its proposals may
promote or inhibit advances in diversity, equity, inclusion, and
accessibility, as well as the scope of the Commission's relevant legal
authority.

II. Procedural Matters

Paperwork Reduction Act

The FNPRM 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 this document, as required by the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, pursuant to the
Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public

[[Page 96176]]

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.
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 in this document.
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 this document. The Commission will send a copy
of the FNPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of
the Small Business Administration.
In the FNPRM, the Commission seeks comment on several issues
pertaining to the implementation of the ACF. In doing so, the
Commission continues to work towards its objectives of providing
service to rural and high-cost areas of Alaska, which historically are
some of the most difficult and costliest areas to serve in the country
and where many residents continue to lack access to the high-quality,
affordable broadband service enjoyed by other parts of our nation.
Specifically, the Commission seeks comment on ACF Mobile Phase II
service goals or requirements, as well as on a methodology to determine
a single support amount for areas where more than one provider had been
receiving support for overlapping service areas, as well as for use in
determining support amounts for areas that the Commission deems
ineligible in the concurrently adopted Order. Additionally, the
Commission seeks comment on how to resolve duplicative funding so that
only one provider would continue receiving support in the area, in
particular proposing two possible mechanisms to address this issue.
Further comment is also sought to update the record on how best to
deploy service to unserved areas using the approximately $162 million
collected from the Alaska Plan. Finally, the Commission seeks comment
on additional issues, such as retail consumer conditions, Open RAN, and
Tribal consent under the ACF. In further developing the record in this
proceeding, the Commission relies on the experiences of carriers with
operations in Alaska, many of which are small business entities, to
build a record on how best to implement the ACF.
The proposed action is authorized pursuant to sections 4(i), 214,
254, 303(r), and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
U.S.C. 154(i), 201, 205, 214, 254, 303(r), 403, and Sec. Sec. 1.1 and
1.421 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.1, 1.421.
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.
Potential rules resulting from comments in the FNPRM, could impose
new or additional recordkeeping and reporting requirements for small
and other entities, if adopted. Specifically, in the FNPRM, the
Commission seeks comment on a number of issues related to the
implementation of the ACF. For example, the FNPRM seeks comment on
setting a minimum goal of deployment of 5G-NR 7/1 Mbps for all mobile
providers participating in ACF Mobile Phase II, as well as whether any
exemptions should be made for certain areas. Under the competitive
mechanism, providers seeking to participate would submit proposals
including coverage maps for the areas where more than one provider
currently receives support, as well as the surrounding community where
no provider or only a single provider may currently offer service. The
coverage map would comply with BDC mobile coverage data requirements
and would predict 5G-NR coverage in an outdoor stationary environment.
An ETC may propose to cover a tract with 5G-NR 7/1 Mbps service or 5G-
NR 35/3 Mbps service, but separate coverage maps must be submitted for
each proposed service. For the alternative mechanism, the Commission
seeks comment on whether to set a minimum goal of deployment for
support under ACF Mobile Phase II of 5G-NR 7/1 Mbps measured in an
outdoor stationary environment.
The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives
that could minimize impacts to small entities that it has considered in
reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four
alternatives (among others): ``(1) the establishment of differing
compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into
account the resources available to small entities; (2) the
clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and
reporting requirements under the rule for such small entities; (3) the
use of performance rather than design standards; and (4) an exemption
from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for such small
entities.''
The FNPRM also takes the step of outlining an alternative mechanism
that would allow a provider to retain its funding if it provides
comparable service in a nonduplicate-support area, as well as consider
alternative approaches from small and other entities on how best to
achieve an outcome that dovetails both the Commission's policy goals
and the minimization of substantial economic impact to small entities.

III. Ordering Clauses

It is further ordered that, pursuant to the authority contained in
sections 4(i), 201, 205, 214, 254, 303(r), and 403 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 201, 205,
214, 254, 303(r), 403, and Sec. Sec. 1.1 and 1.421 of the Commission's
rules, 47 CFR 1.1, 1.421, the FNPRM is adopted. The FNPRM 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. 2024-28170 Filed 12-3-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P

</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>

View on FederalRegister.gov →Plain-text source

Indexed from Federal Register on December 4, 2024.

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.