Rule2024-29485
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 31, 2024
Effective
January 30, 2025
Issuing agencies
Federal Communications Commission
Abstract
The Federal Communications Commission (Commission or FCC) has long recognized that rural and high-cost areas of Alaska are some of the hardest and most costly to serve in the country, with many residents lacking access to high-quality, affordable broadband that maintains parity with the technological advances that consumers living elsewhere in the nation enjoy. In this document, the Commission takes important and necessary steps to ensure continued support for the advancement of modern mobile and fixed broadband service in Alaska.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 89 Issue 250 (Tuesday, December 31, 2024)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 250 (Tuesday, December 31, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 107196-107234]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2024-29485]
[[Page 107195]]
Vol. 89
Tuesday,
No. 250
December 31, 2024
Part II
Federal Communications Commission
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
47 CFR Part 54
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; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 89 , No. 250 / Tuesday, December 31, 2024 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 107196]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 266277]
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: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Federal Communications Commission (Commission or FCC) has
long recognized that rural and high-cost areas of Alaska are some of
the hardest and most costly to serve in the country, with many
residents lacking access to high-quality, affordable broadband that
maintains parity with the technological advances that consumers living
elsewhere in the nation enjoy. In this document, the Commission takes
important and necessary steps to ensure continued support for the
advancement of modern mobile and fixed broadband service in Alaska.
DATES: Effective January 30, 2025.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, please
contact, Rebekah Douglas, Attorney Advisor, Telecommunications Access
Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, at
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#8bd9eee9eee0eae3a5cfe4feece7eaf8cbede8e8a5ece4fd"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="64360106010f050c4a200b1103080517240207074a030b12">[email protected]</span></a> or 202-418-7400; Matthew Warner, Attorney
Advisor, Competition and Infrastructure Policy Division, Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#5815392c2c303d2f760f392a363d2a183e3b3b763f372e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="fbb69a8f8f939e8cd5ac9a89959e89bb9d9898d59c948d">[email protected]</span></a> or 202-418-2419; or
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#1a5b595c5a7c7979347d756c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b2f3f1f4f2d4d1d19cd5ddc4">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Report
and Order (Order) 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>.
Synopsis
I. Report and Order
In the Order, the Commission takes important and necessary steps to
ensure continued support for the advancement of modern mobile and fixed
broadband service in Alaska. The Commission has long recognized that
rural and high-cost areas of Alaska are some of the hardest and most
costly to serve in the country, with many residents lacking access to
high-quality, affordable broadband that maintains parity with the
technological advances that consumers living elsewhere in the nation
enjoy. In 2016, to address the unique needs of providing broadband
service in Alaska, the Commission established the 10-year Alaska Plan
to support the maintenance and deployment of voice and broadband fixed
and mobile services. This Plan, along with other frozen support and
model-based support, has resulted in substantially increased deployment
of both fixed and mobile broadband services. As of the end of 2023,
carriers in Alaska receiving high-cost support have reported deploying
or upgrading fixed broadband service to more than 96,000 locations, the
majority of which are served at a speed of 25/3 Mbps or greater. Since
January 2017, the number of Alaskans served by 4G LTE service or better
by the Alaska Plan providers increased from roughly 33,000 to 98,000 in
areas eligible for support.
While the original Alaska Plan and other Alaska support mechanisms
have helped make significant progress in Alaska, many areas in the
state remain unserved or underserved. 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 28% of
broadband-serviceable units lack at least 100/20 Mbps fixed terrestrial
service. An estimated 51,000 Alaskans still receive 3G service--an
outdated technological standard--or worse. Historic levels of federal
investments from the National Telecommunications and Information
Administration's (NTIA)'s Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment
(BEAD) Program will bring broadband to unserved and underserved
locations throughout Alaska. Nonetheless, there will be an ongoing need
for funding to maintain and operate the broadband networks built by the
Universal Service Fund (USF) and BEAD as well as a need to support the
deployment of mobile broadband which is not being funded through BEAD.
Recognizing the importance of addressing current broadband funding
concerns and the long-term broadband needs of Alaskan households in a
rapidly changing funding environment, today the Commission moves
forward with establishing the Alaska Connect Fund program (the ``Alaska
Connect Fund'' or ``ACF'') to provide ongoing and certain support to
both mobile and fixed carriers receiving USF high-cost support in
Alaska through 2034, with increased support amounts that reflect the
transition to higher speed service goals for the ACF. With ACF, the
Commission also applies lessons learned from its current Alaska support
programs and ensure high-cost support complements other federal funding
programs.
The support needs and landscape for mobile and fixed services in
Alaska are different. Therefore, as the Commission did with the
original Alaska Plan, it establishes separate mechanisms for mobile and
fixed providers, with each mechanism tailored to the needs of the
supported services. On the fixed side, the Commission's support and
broadband service goals will be materially affected by, and are
intended to be complementary to, the BEAD awards, as well as other
federal broadband infrastructure funding. The Commission provides a
period of transitional support (ACF Transition) for existing support
recipients through 2028 to allow time for network deployments funded by
these programs to be completed or nearly completed. During the ACF
Transition, carriers will be responsible for maintaining the same level
of service and meeting any deployment obligations they are committed to
under the Commission's Alaska Plan, Alaska Communications Systems
(ACS), and Alternative Connect America Cost Model (A-CAM) programs.
Following the ACF Transition, beginning January 1, 2029, the Commission
establishes the framework for the Alaska Connect Fund Fixed services
program (Fixed ACF) to provide fixed service providers ongoing
technology-neutral support through the end of 2034, focused on
supporting the maintenance and operation of broadband and voice capable
networks in Alaska. Because a full picture of fixed broadband
deployment will not be clear until BEAD and other federal funding is
awarded, the Commission incorporates sufficient flexibility into Fixed
ACF to evaluate and address future deployment needs. This two-phased
approach will allow for continued and certain support for existing USF
participants for a set period, while allowing the Commission to develop
a complete picture of how the BEAD program and other federal network
deployment funding will be allocated in Alaska to ensure that the Fixed
ACF program complements these programs most effectively for the benefit
of Alaskan consumers. The Commission also adopts phased down high-cost
support for any current recipient that is authorized to receive less
support
[[Page 107197]]
during Fixed ACF than during ACF Transition.
While the Order provides a framework for Fixed ACF, the Commission
delegates several requirements to the Wireline Competition Bureau (WCB)
to resolve through an opportunity for public notice and comment,
including developing a process of accepting offers for support,
providing guidance on how eligible carriers can participate in the
program, determining eligible locations, allocating support for
eligible locations, and determining whether support for new deployment
is necessary, including whether a budget adjustment is in the public
interest. The Commission delegates to WCB authority to determine
whether any adjustments to the public interest obligations, including
any updates to the methodology for the Alaska-specific benchmark, are
in the public interest. The Commission also delegates authority to WCB
to determine whether additional accountability and oversight measures,
including certifications, reporting requirements or compliance measures
are necessary for Fixed ACF and any phase-down support recipients.
On the mobile side, because BEAD does not explicitly fund mobile
deployments, the Alaska Connect Fund has an important role to play in
ensuring Alaskans have access to reliable, advanced mobile service,
particularly in upgrading networks to 5G and encouraging deployment to
unserved and underserved areas. As with fixed service, the Commission
adopts a two-phase approach for mobile service that balances the
importance of giving mobile providers certainty of funding in certain
areas to help meet its goals of 5G deployment, with the need to ensure
funding is not being targeted to last generation technologies (e.g., 2G
and 3G) but rather is targeted to areas where it is needed the most and
to address concerns of duplicate support. The framework the Commission
adopts for mobile support relies on the improved mobile coverage data
obtained in the Broadband Data Collection (BDC), which is reflected on
the Commission's National Broadband Map and which provides it with the
most comprehensive picture to date about where mobile broadband service
is and is not available across the country, including Alaska. Overall,
the Commission extends support for a set period for mobile providers
that: (1) participated in the Alaska Plan and (2) choose to opt into
the Alaska Connect Fund, subject to conditions set forth in this
document. The terms and goal speeds for mobile support under the Alaska
Connect Fund will be based on whether an eligible area has a single or
multiple subsidized providers. For eligible areas where there is only
one subsidized provider (single-support areas), the current provider
will continue receiving support through the end of 2034 and will be
expected to enter into a new performance plan with 5G service where
technically and financially feasible. For eligible areas with multiple
subsidized providers (duplicate-support areas), the Commission adopts a
two-phased approach to resolve duplicative support: (1) an Alaska
Connect Fund Mobile Phase I (ACF Mobile Phase I) that extends support
for the mobile providers receiving support in these duplicate-support
areas under the current Alaska Plan until December 31, 2029; and (2) an
Alaska Connect Fund Mobile Phase II (ACF Mobile Phase II) that would
provide a single provider in those areas with support through the end
of 2034. The Commission delegates authority to the Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau (WTB) to implement and administer various
components of the mobile portion of the Alaska Connect Fund. For
example, the Commission delegates authority to WTB to review and
approve performance plans for mobile ACF support. The Commission also
delegates authority to WTB in coordination with the Office of Economics
and Analytics (OEA) to develop and publish a map of areas eligible and
ineligible to receive ACF mobile support. The Commission also delegates
authority to WTB to implement accountability and oversight measures for
mobile-support recipients.
In the following, the Commission establishes separate approaches
for the Alaska fixed and mobile markets to address the differing
circumstances in each. However, these two sectors share certain common
aspects. Before explaining the details of the Commission's revised
fixed and mobile mechanisms, it addresses the eligible
telecommunications carrier (ETC) requirements and the Commission's
revised budget.
Consistent with the 1996 Communications Act and the Commission's
long-standing rules for the high-cost program, all Alaska Connect Fund
recipients must be designated as an ETC before receiving high-cost
support from either Fixed ACF or Mobile ACF. ETC status is mandated by
the Communications Act and is a hallmark statutory requirement of the
USF high-cost program, serving as an important check on reliability and
accountability for consumers.
In the Alaska Connect Fund Notice, 88 FR 80238, November 17, 2023,
the Commission sought comment on eligibility for Alaska Connect Fund
support. Some commenters suggest eliminating the requirement to obtain
ETC designation, citing difficulties obtaining ETC status and other
programs that are not subject to the ETC statutory rules. The Alaska
Rural ISP Coalition (ARIC) suggests that the Commission, instead,
impose alternative requirements ``ensuring a level of responsibility
appropriate for Alaska Connect eligibility.'' However, the Commission
agrees with commenters that, consistent with the Communications Act and
the Commission's longstanding practice for the high-cost program, an
Alaska Connect Fund support recipient must be designated as an ETC
before receiving high-cost support. These commenters properly recognize
that the statutory provisions of the Communications Act mandate the
Commission only provide universal service high-cost support to carriers
with ETC status. Alaska Telecom Association (ATA) and NTCA-The Rural
Broadband Association (NTCA) also point to the oversight ability of the
Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA) and the Commission as an
effective consumer protection of service standards and quality. The
Commission recognizes that becoming an ETC carries with it certain
obligations, such as a requirement to provision voice service, which is
not a business that all broadband providers in Alaska are engaged in
providing. However, the Commission agrees with Alaska Power and
Telephone that voice service remains critical to health and safety,
particularly in Alaska, and is a core element of universal service.
Moreover, the Commission notes that in Alaska, the RCA is the governing
body that adjudicates the process and designates carriers as ETCs in
their service territories, and without notice from the State that it is
declining its jurisdiction, the Commission does not have authority to
designate ETC status for carriers in Alaska.
Therefore, the Commission requires that any ACF recipient must be
an ETC before it can receive support. Carriers currently receiving
support will already have obtained ETC designation. Any provider
awarded federal infrastructure support through BEAD or other programs
that is not already an ETC, however, will be required to become an ETC
and provide certification and evidence of its designation to WCB and
WTB (together ``the Bureaus'') in order to receive ACF support. The
framework
[[Page 107198]]
the Commission establishes in this document provides time for these
providers to seek ETC designations. The Commission directs WCB to
provide guidance on appropriate deadlines by which providers must
obtain an ETC designation, and whether election of Fixed ACF support
will be conditioned on having already obtained ETC designation or
whether a period of time will be allowed following acceptance to obtain
ETC designation. In the concurrently adopted Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (FNPRM), the Commission seeks comment on whether ACF Mobile
Phase II should allow any Alaska ETC to participate in the proposed
competitive mechanism intended to resolve duplicative support,
including those that are not currently receiving support under the
Alaska Plan. Even if the Commission expands mobile support to include
carriers that are not current Alaska Plan support recipients, it
reiterates that mobile providers must receive ETC designation from the
RCA before they are eligible to participate in the competitive process
in ACF Mobile Phase II duplicate-support areas.
Some Tribal organizations commented about a need for a
``streamlined'' or special process for Tribal entities seeking ETC
status in Alaska that recognizes Tribal sovereignty. The Commission
notes that in the 2000 Tribal Order, 65 FR 47883, August 4, 2000, it
established a process tailored specifically to carriers serving Tribal
lands, whereby a carrier may seek ETC designation directly from the
Commission. The Tribal Access Coalition commented that a Tribal entity
should not have to partner with an ETC to obtain high-cost support, and
NTTA argued that the Commission should either automatically grant ETC
status or create an expedited process for ETC designation for new, non-
ILEC carriers in Alaska that are serving Tribal Nations and Tribal
Lands receiving deployment funding through other state and federal
programs. The Commission remains committed to making advanced voice and
broadband service available to all consumers in Alaska. As explained in
this document, ETC designation is a statutory requirement, and the RCA
has designation authority and providers are subject to the RCA's
designation process. Therefore, the Commission does not require a
different standard for carriers serving Tribal lands. However, the
Commission will continue to explore whether its authority affords us
any additional opportunities for ensuring that a Tribally owned carrier
in Alaska that is able to meet the requirements for ETC designation is
able to obtain that status and participate in the program. The
Commission will prepare guides and resources and conduct outreach to
help inform Tribal providers about the ETC designation process. The
Commission directs the Bureaus, in conjunction with the Office of
Native Affairs and Policy, to inquire further regarding the experience
of Tribally owned and operated carriers in Alaska.
The Commission next concludes that an increase in support, starting
January 1, 2025, is warranted for all current recipients of high-cost
fixed and mobile support in Alaska. In the Alaska Connect Fund Notice,
the Commission asked about an appropriate budget for the Alaska Connect
Fund that would provide support that is sufficient to achieve the
Commission's goals while not burdening consumers. The Commission
inquired about the size of a budget that would be necessary to support
continuity of service in areas already built out. The Commission also
asked whether it was appropriate for it to increase for inflation the
current budget of existing, Alaska focused high-cost programs. Further,
the Commission sought comment on how it should allocate support among
the mobile participants in the Alaska Connect Fund and ``how to provide
sufficient support amounts to achieve the goals of encouraging secure
mobile service deployment, while ensuring prudent use of universal
service funds.''
The current support budget for fixed carriers in Alaska is $82.8
million per year, which includes the combined budget for frozen fixed
service in the Alaska Plan Order, 81 FR 69696, October 7, 2016, the ACS
Order, 81 FR 83706, November 22, 2016, and the two Alaska recipients of
A-CAM support. For mobile recipients, the Alaska Plan Order froze
mobile support at 2011 levels in exchange for improved mobile services
in Alaska, amounting to $739 million (or $73.9 million annually) in
frozen support to the eight mobile providers of the Alaska Plan over a
ten-year period. In seeking comment on the budget in the concurrently
adopted FNPRM, the Commission observed in the Alaska Connect Fund
Notice that mobile support levels in the Alaska Plan were set by the
identical support rule, which based support for mobile competitive ETCs
on the costs of wireline voice providers.
Many commenters supported an adjusted budget based on the
inflationary pressures felt throughout Alaska since the current high-
cost support mechanisms began. In ATA's request to renew the Alaska
Plan for another 10 years, it asks for an increase in support to
reflect an inflationary adjustment since the beginning of the Alaska
Plan, as well as an annual budget update. ATA provides examples of the
increase in costs that providers have faced to deploy and maintain
their networks during the course of the Alaska Plan and argues that an
inflationary increase is necessary and appropriate to adjust to the
increase in costs. ACS points out that frozen support, calculated based
on the embedded costs of a voice-only network, bears no relationship to
the costs of deploying high-speed broadband networks. Copper Valley
Wireless notes that its wireless costs have increased by 141% since the
start of the Alaska Plan. GCI Communication Corp. (GCI) has also
submitted a cost study to demonstrate that 5G-NR coverage to all
Broadband Serviceable Locations (BSLs) in Alaska will require far more
funding than the support currently disbursed pursuant to the Alaska
Plan.
Based on the Commission's careful consideration of the record, it
concludes that increasing support for both fixed and mobile services is
warranted to better align support with anticipated increased network
speeds that will be supported under the Alaska Connect Fund. For fixed
service, as of 2029, the Commission set a speed goal of 100/20 Mbps,
which calls for an increase in support. The Commission does not change
fixed service requirements now, and in setting a speed goal, it
recognizes 100/20 Mbps may not be feasible everywhere even with
available government funding, thus making it necessary to provide
flexibility to support lower speeds where 100/20 Mbps is not feasible.
Between now and the end of 2028, due to BEAD commitments and
commitments from other broadband infrastructure funding, fixed
providers will begin to build networks that meet higher service levels
and may even begin providing service that meets higher service levels.
In addition, there are non-BEAD eligible locations served under current
high-cost programs that will benefit from this increase in support due
to need to maintain these higher service levels. To provide a smooth
ramp toward the provision of higher speed services with higher
operating costs the Commission raises support levels now to support
those costs.
Likewise, for mobile service, the Commission increases support
levels due to the higher service goals under the Alaska Connect Fund.
Providers in single-support areas--which the Commission anticipates
will be a
[[Page 107199]]
substantial majority of the support areas--are expected to deploy 5G-NR
throughout these areas, reaching 5G-NR at 35/3 Mbps, where technically
and financially feasible, by December 31, 2034. Mobile providers can
begin making improvements toward this end immediately, even as they
move towards their final commitments under the Alaska Plan. The Alaska
Plan sought to have 4G LTE at 10/1 Mbps deployed by December 31, 2026,
and some providers have committed to improvements beyond that standard.
The Commission does not alter these commitments, but improvements
exceeding an Alaska Plan provider's final commitments will count
towards meeting its lower commitments. For example, where a provider
deploys 5G-NR before the end of the Alaska Plan, it can count towards
the Alaska Plan provider's 4G LTE or lower technology commitments (but
the Commission notes that providers still must meet the minimum speed
requirements in their Alaska Plan commitments); similarly, if a
provider deploys higher speeds as it works toward Alaska Connect Fund
obligations, those can count toward its lower speed commitments under
the Alaska Plan. Because the Commission anticipates that mobile
providers will begin working towards these higher service goals
immediately where technically and financially feasible, it provides
commensurate support to achieve those ends.
While the Commission increases the support amounts, it declines to
adjust the budget or support amounts in Alaska in response to
inflationary pressures. While increases in costs for equipment,
transportation, fuel for equipment, and staff may well have grown
beyond those predicted at the time current support mechanisms were
initiated, those same pressures are felt elsewhere. Non-Alaska A-CAM
carriers have not received increases for inflation (i.e., the
Commission did not adjust the model inputs for Enhanced Alternative
Connect America Cost Model (Enhanced A-CAM) to account for inflation or
otherwise increase support for carriers staying on A-CAM). Other
carriers receiving frozen support, similar to ACS, were then put on
model-based support or subject to a competitive mechanism (e.g. price
cap carriers, Puerto Rico Telephone Company, and Viya). Further, the
Commission has been reluctant to adjust support for inflation in other
contexts, such as its recent order regarding rates for incarcerated
persons.
For both fixed and wireless services, the Commission directs the
Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC or the Administrator) to
make a one-time 30% adjustment of current support amounts for
recipients of USF high-cost support in Alaska, to begin January 1,
2025. The Commission finds this increase in support is sufficient to
meet the higher service speeds under the ACF, while also ensuring
prudent use of universal service funds. Given that the Commission's
rationale for increasing support is not inflation-based, it declines to
make an adjustment for inflation to determine the increased support
amount.
The amount of fixed Alaska Plan, ACS Order, and A-CAM high-cost
support disbursed in Alaska in 2025, noted as $82.8 million annually
above, adjusted 30%, will be approximately $107.6 million annually
through December 2028. The 30% increase for wireless service results in
a total budget of approximately $96 million annually. While the
Commission increases mobile support for Alaska providers, at this time,
it declines to provide a 30% increase to the $162,270,272 otherwise
allocated to the unserved areas mobile reverse auction. There is no
support in the record for an increase to this amount. Moreover,
historically competitive mechanisms have resulted in support amounts
below the allocated budget, ensuring a more efficient use of limited
funding.
Given the increased support amount the Commission is providing, and
in recognition of the value of certainty and predictability, it
declines to make annual increases for inflation or any other reasons.
As the Commission explained in the Enhanced A-CAM Order, 88 FR 55918,
August 17, 2023, when rejecting annual increases for inflation,
``[i]nflation adjustments would undermine the benefits of budgetary
certainty provided by fixed, model-based support, including the ability
to control the future impact of the mechanism on the contribution
factor.'' Therefore, the Commission finds that annual budgetary
certainty is paramount to the unpredictability of an annual adjustment,
and it declines to make annual increases for inflation or any other
reasons. However, the Commission directs WCB to continue to monitor
support levels under the Alaska Connect Fund to ensure they are
furthering universal service goals in Alaska.
The goal of the Alaska Connect Fund for fixed services is to
encourage and sustain the availability of affordable voice and
broadband services to all Alaskans. Adopting a budget and the framework
for two phases of the Alaska Connect Fund for fixed services will
first, in ACF Transition, provide the certainty of continued USF high-
cost support for Alaska carriers while new networks are constructed and
will, with Fixed ACF, establish a mechanism to fund those networks and
existing ones for a period thereafter. The Commission anticipates that
the broadband deployment already completed with USF funding, as well as
the buildout that will occur under BEAD and other federal and state
programs, will result in making broadband available to all or almost
all broadband serviceable locations in Alaska. As such, ACF Transition
and Fixed ACF will prioritize support for ongoing maintenance and
operations to complement federal support directed for building
infrastructure and new deployment. Nonetheless, as explained in the
following, in the event that some areas are left unserved, the
Commission maintains the flexibility for Fixed ACF to address these
areas, and it delegates to the WCB the authority to consider the needs
of any such areas.
At the outset, the Commission addresses the applicability of the
Broadband DATA Act, which requires that, after the creation of the BSL
Fabric and Broadband Maps, it uses those data ``when making any new
award of funding with respect to the deployment of broadband internet
access.'' ACF Transition is an extension of existing USF support and
related obligations and is only supporting already-authorized broadband
deployment. As the purpose of the ACF Transition support is to sustain
existing networks and authorized obligations, the Commission concludes
it is not a new award of funding and does not trigger the requirements
of the Broadband DATA Act. At the same time, the framework the
Commission adopts for Fixed ACF likewise prioritizes support for
maintaining and sustaining existing (including networks that are in the
process of and will be deployed under BEAD and other federal funding)
voice and broadband networks. However, since the Commission delegates,
in the following, to WCB the responsibility to complete certain
requirements of Fixed ACF, to the extent that any Fixed ACF support is
awarded or authorized for the deployment of broadband networks,
pursuant to that delegated authority, Commission staff shall use the
National Broadband Map and its constituent parts (BSL Fabric and fixed-
broadband availability data collected as part of the BDC), and
Broadband Funding Map.
The Commission initiates the ACF Transition by increasing annual
support amounts, for reasons discussed in this document, and extending
certain existing Alaska carrier USF support
[[Page 107200]]
terms. During this ACF Transition, the Commission aligns the support
terms for current recipients of fixed services support in Alaska so
that all support terms during the ACF Transition end in 2028. Thus,
ACS's support term is extended from the end of 2025 to 2028, the
support term for all Alaska Plan carriers is extended from the end of
2026 to the end of 2028, and the support term for the two Alaska A-CAM
I carriers continues to the end of 2028. A single, harmonized end date
for current high-cost fixed support programs in Alaska is necessary:
(1) to allow time for award of funding through BEAD and other
infrastructure projects; (2) to holistically assess the funding
landscape in Alaska for all service providers and consumers after these
funds are awarded; (3) to avoid duplicate support; and (4) to ease the
administrative burden of coordinating provider obligations and
disbursements going forward. All carriers continuing to receive support
in ACF Transition remain subject to their current public interest
obligations, including deployment obligations and performance testing,
and must maintain service through the end of ACF Transition on December
31, 2028.
Support Terms. The Commission establishes a uniform conclusion date
of December 31, 2028 for the ACF Transition support terms of all
current recipients of high-cost fixed services support in Alaska to
provide certainty and enable a smooth transition to Fixed ACF.
Currently, the obligations and support conclude for ACS in 2025, the
Alaska Plan in 2026, and A-CAM in 2028. Support recipients of these
programs have public service obligations tailored to the specific
programs through which they are receiving support, but these disparate
support timelines complicate the initiation of a new, unified support
program for Alaska. Commenters generally agreed that a single high-cost
program for Alaska would be desirable, although they did not provide
suggestions for aligning the different existing timelines. Several
commenters emphasized the need for adopting solutions for Alaska
support as soon as practical. In its petition, ATA suggested a new
support structure should be adopted before the current programs
conclude. Additionally, the Alaska Broadband Office (ABO) noted that
high-cost support is needed to provide both sustainability and
certainty as well as supporting affordability during the period while
the BEAD Program is implemented.
The Commission agrees with commenters that an extension of current
support will provide certainty for current support recipients and will
ensure continuity of service for Alaskan consumers. The Commission also
finds that establishing clear timelines both for the availability of
current support streams and for a support mechanism to be adopted after
BEAD funding is awarded will best support its goals in Alaska as well
as support carriers providing service in Alaska in planning projects
and expenditures for the next several years. Finally, the Commission
finds that a uniform support term (until the end of 2028) is
appropriate because it allows all high-cost support programs in Alaska
to reach their end at the same time, thereby reducing complexity and
uncertainty that could arise in the absence of a uniform date.
Accountability and Oversight. During the ACF Transition, support
recipients must continue to meet all public interest requirements
established for the program from which they have been receiving funds,
including completing any buildout obligations at the required
performance levels by the dates previously established and meeting all
other existing public interest obligations. All ACF Transition support
recipients will remain obligated to make certifications and filings as
required under current rules and must adhere to current record
retention requirements. Carriers must continue any established
performance testing. Given that BEAD and other federal programs will
support broadband construction and that support has not yet been
awarded, the Commission will not require broadband deployment beyond
existing commitments as a condition of receiving support for fixed
services during the ACF Transition.
The Commission emphasizes the ACF Transition is intended to provide
a smooth transition to a new support mechanism and in no way relieves
carriers of their existing obligations. As noted in this document, A-
CAM carriers in Alaska, Alaska Plan carriers, and ACS will be subject
to support recovery for failure to meet their deployment milestones as
provided under the Commission's existing rules. Similarly, carriers
that receive support during ACF Transition will be subject to recovery
of support for failure to meet performance testing standards both under
their existing programs and on an annual basis after the original end
date of their current programs. Thus, A-CAM carriers will see no change
in their performance testing obligations, as those obligations already
extend through 2028. However, ACS and Alaska Plan carriers will be
subject to performance testing on existing deployment on an annual
basis through December 31, 2028 which is after the end of their current
programs. For example, an Alaska Plan carrier receiving support during
ACF Transition will be subject to support recovery if it fails to meet
its performance testing standards at the end of 2026. In addition, that
same carrier will be subject to support recovery if it fails to meet
performance testing standards at the end of 2028. Carriers will also be
required to continue the filing of middle-mile maps and broadband
service reporting. Carriers that were only obligated to maintain
service under the Alaska Plan will continue to be subject to biennial
review.
With Fixed ACF beginning in January 2029, the Commission continues
targeted Alaska mechanisms that provide predictability for continued
USF high-cost support through 2034 and account for existing and new
broadband deployment funding programs. Current USF programs combined
with BEAD and other federal and state broadband funding should together
result in broadband deployment to all or almost all unserved or
underserved broadband serviceable locations. Fixed ACF is intended to
be a technology neutral program and to complement network deployment
funding by providing operational and maintenance support for carriers
that have been or will be awarded federal or state government
infrastructure support for the deployment of voice and broadband
service in Alaska. The Commission does this to help sustain these
networks into the future and bring Alaska consumers closer to enjoying
the same modern telecommunications as those available to consumers in
the rest of the country.
As discussed in the Alaska Connect Fund Notice, there have been and
continue to be significant changes to the broadband landscape in
Alaska. Specifically, over $1 billion in federal BEAD funding will be
allocated to providers in Alaska, which has the potential to change the
landscape of advanced telecommunications service in Alaska
dramatically. The Commission would not be meeting its responsibilities
as stewards of the USF if it allocated support to specific carriers
without considering the implications of BEAD awards, as well as other
federal broadband funding. The Commission agrees with NTCA that support
provided through the Alaska Connect Fund should be informed by and
build upon the progress of previous support mechanisms and focus on
keeping services available to the consumer, and therefore it must take
into account
[[Page 107201]]
BEAD funding awards, which are expected to be made in fall next year.
As such, while the Commission determines a total budget amount of
annual support for Fixed ACF, it delegates to WCB the authority to
determine, after an opportunity for public notice and comment, how
Fixed ACF support shall be allocated among eligible locations. The
Commission directs WCB to provide further guidance to carriers on the
timing and process of electing Fixed ACF support in advance of the
start of Fixed ACF support, taking into consideration BEAD and any
other federal or state broadband funding allocations.
Budget. The Commission adopts an annual budget of $107.6 million
for Fixed ACF, approximately the same annual amount being authorized
during the ACF Transition. The Commission finds that maintaining the
same budget and adopting the Fixed ACF budget now provides entities
interested in pursuing network deployment funding, through BEAD or
other federal or state programs with certainty that USF high-cost
support will continue to sustain the operation of the networks that
carriers receive funding to build. ATA and other commenters encouraged
the Commission to provide these assurances now, ahead of BEAD funding
awards, and it finds a stated budget amount achieves that goal. During
Fixed ACF, the Commission's goal is to support the sustainability of
government funded networks, which it expects will provide speeds of at
least 100/20 Mbps, which is a higher speed standard than has been
required to date for carriers currently receiving high-cost support in
Alaska. The operating costs of supporting a higher capacity network,
especially after accounting for current middle-mile costs in Alaska,
are likely materially more expensive than lesser bandwidth services,
and the Commission finds that maintaining the same increased budget as
the ACF Transition, as discussed in this document, allows carriers to
plan for operation at that level. Accordingly, the Commission finds
that the budget it adopts is sufficient to help advance the goal of
sustaining service at reasonably comparable rates and provide
predictability while being mindful of the burdens on payers into the
USF. Nevertheless, the Commission allows for flexibility in specific
situations, as explained in the following, to support networks that
cannot provide service at 100/20 Mbps. The Commission declines to
further adjust the budget at this time. Fixed ACF support will
prioritize supporting the operations and maintenance of already-
constructed networks over additional deployment, and it is premature to
determine if any additional adjustments are warranted. The Commission
expects that, with the delegation of authority it provides to WCB in
the following, support will be carefully allocated to achieve the goals
of Fixed ACF. Nonetheless, the Commission delegates authority to WCB to
determine, after the opportunity for public notice and comment, whether
any further budget adjustment, one-time or annual, is appropriate prior
to the beginning of Fixed ACF. Specifically, WCB has the authority to
increase the Fixed ACF budget by up to 15% of the annual budget on a
one-time basis or annually if WCB determines that such an increase is
in the public interest.
Support Term and Timing. The Commission adopts a six-year term of
support for Fixed ACF, which will begin January 1, 2029 and conclude on
December 31, 2034. The Commission's action in this document strikes the
appropriate balance among providing predictability of support, its
obligation to use support effectively, and the Congressional
requirement to coordinate with other federal agencies that administer
broadband deployment programs. ATA proposed that the Commission provide
support through 2034, and commenters generally agree on a 10-year term
of support. The Commission has consistently provided high-cost support
in 10-year terms, particularly in Alaska due to its unique work season,
extended timelines, and generalized logistical challenges, and it finds
the six-year term for Fixed ACF together with the four-year term of ACF
Transition is an appropriate timeframe in this context. As explained
above, extending support for ACF Transition through the end of 2028
allows all existing high-cost support programs in Alaska to reach their
natural end at the same time. Additionally, by January 1, 2029, the
Commission will have the benefit of knowing how BEAD funding in Alaska
is awarded, including which providers will be building in which areas
and if any areas are being left unserved. The Commission agrees with
commenters that argue it is important for them to consider the
allocation of BEAD funding when extending USF support. The beginning of
2029 roughly corresponds to the expected timeline for when BEAD
awardees will have deployed or will be finishing construction of the
networks funded by that program. Additionally, USF high-cost support
recipients in Alaska will have already completed their existing
deployment obligations. This information will allow WCB to allocate
Fixed ACF support so as to avoid duplicative deployment funding while
identifying any areas that are not yet funded. The Commission expects
the majority of government funded networks in Alaska through currently
existing programs will be built and available for consumer use by 2029,
and it therefore finds it appropriate to provide USF support at that
time for operations and ongoing maintenance. Accordingly, the
Commission adopts this term now to provide clarity and predictability
for carriers submitting applications for infrastructure support through
BEAD or participating in other broadband infrastructure programs, and
to allow carriers to proceed with confidence in planning and
construction, knowing that USF high-cost support will continue to be
available once their networks are constructed.
Eligible Carriers. In the Alaska Connect Fund Notice, the
Commission sought comment on eligibility for participation in the
program and information about ETCs in Alaska. In its comments, Alaska
Remote Carrier Coalition (ARCC) introduced the concept of an Alaska
Broadband Checklist, outlining several proposed eligibility and carrier
requirements. ARCC also encouraged recognition of the varied and unique
circumstances across the state of Alaska. Some commenters suggested
only carriers currently receiving high-cost support in Alaska should be
eligible for ACF support, while other commenters encouraged us to
include new participants and carriers that have not previously received
high-cost support in Alaska to date.
The Commission directs WCB to make Fixed ACF support available for
fixed services to ETCs in Alaska that receive or are awarded funding
from federal or state government support programs to deploy networks
capable of providing voice and broadband internet access service
meeting the Commission's public interest obligations to eligible
locations. For example, a carrier that received funding for broadband
deployment through programs such as, but not limited to, USF High-Cost,
BEAD, the Department of Agriculture's ReConnect program, or the NTIA's
Tribal Broadband Connectivity Program to deploy a network capable of
providing broadband internet access service may be eligible for Fixed
ACF support. In taking this approach, the Commission agrees with the
commenters advocating to include new participants and carriers that
have not received high-cost support in Alaska to date. The Commission
recognizes there
[[Page 107202]]
likely are or will be new providers in Alaskan communities due to other
federal infrastructure funding. The Commission finds that providing the
opportunity for these new participants in Alaska furthers its goal of
making networks in Alaska sustainable into the future. The Commission
directs WCB to use the Broadband Funding Map to assist in determining
eligible carriers. Subject to the limitations discussed in the
following, the Commission delegates authority to WCB to consider how to
allocate Fixed ACF support among the eligible fixed service carriers in
Alaska. The Commission also delegates authority to WCB to determine,
after opportunity for public notice and comment, whether additional
financial or other requirements for new entrants in Fixed ACF would be
in the public interest.
Intended Use of Support. Fixed ACF support shall be focused on
supporting ongoing operations and maintenance of already-constructed
voice and broadband-capable networks. The Commission finds that it is
not necessary to allocate support for broadband infrastructure at this
time given the historic investment of federal funding that has been
directed for that purpose through BEAD and other programs and the
expectation that this funding will result in planned deployment to all
or almost all locations in Alaska. Commenters generally agree that
support for ongoing operations and maintenance is essential to
complement infrastructure deployment. The Commission agrees with NTCA
that the mission of universal service extends beyond just building
infrastructure and that high-cost support serves an important role in
keeping services operational once a network is built. The intended use
of support is not strictly for operating expenses as expenditures to
maintain a network may be accounted for as capital expenses where
appropriate, for instance, expenses incurred to replace network
equipment.
Like recipients of Alaska Plan and model-based support, Fixed ACF
recipients may use support anywhere in their network to maintain their
ability to offer service at the public interest standards in high-cost
areas and will not be limited to using support only for last-mile
infrastructure. For example, a recipient that operates its own middle-
mile networks may use support for the maintenance and operation of
those portions of the network as well. The Commission finds that
allowing recipients the flexibility to use Fixed ACF support in any
area of their network allows high-cost support to be targeted to where
it is needed most and to better ensure carriers can meet their public
interest obligations. The Commission anticipates that this will also
encourage the maintenance and operation of middle-mile networks in
Alaska so that they can be utilized economically.
Fixed ACF recipients, like all other ETCs, remain subject to
limitations on the appropriate use of universal service support. The
Commission has previously reminded ETCs of their statutory obligation
to use high-cost support only for its intended purposes. These same
principles apply here. To the extent the Commission or WCB revises the
expectations for what constitutes expenditure of support for its
intended purposes, recipients participating in Alaska Connect Fund will
be subject to those new rules.
While the Commission directs Fixed ACF support for maintaining and
operating the network, it is cognizant that there may still be a need
for deployment funding in Alaska and that any remaining unserved or
underserved areas will be identified by 2029. Therefore, the Commission
builds flexibility into Fixed ACF to address such needs at that time.
The Commission delegates authority to WCB to determine, after an
opportunity for public notice and comment, whether it is in the public
interest to allocate any Fixed ACF support for additional broadband
deployment after BEAD and other funding has been awarded, and if so, to
determine the amount to be allocated. Should WCB decide that it is in
the public interest, the Commission further delegates authority to WCB
to determine, after an opportunity for public notice and comment,
public interest obligations and a deployment timeline, including
interim and final milestones, appropriate for the support provided and
the nature of the deployment. While the Commission has considered
arguments for allocating high-cost support in Alaska for
infrastructure, it finds it is premature to do so prior to BEAD funding
being awarded. If, however, WCB determines that authorizing support for
deployment for Fixed ACF is in the public interest, WCB shall work
within the Fixed ACF budget to determine how best to allocate support
between operations and deployment.
Eligible Locations and Support Amounts Per Location. The Commission
delegates authority to WCB to determine, after an opportunity for
public comment, which locations are eligible for Fixed ACF support for
fixed services and how to allocate Fixed ACF support among eligible
locations. WCB shall consider allocating Fixed ACF support based on the
BSL categories developed by the ABO and may prioritize support based on
the remoteness of the location. For example, using the June 2023
version of the Fabric, the ABO categorized all broadband serviceable
locations in the state of Alaska based on whether they are: high-cost
or non-high-cost (for purposes of the BEAD program), and whether they
are on the fiber or road system, rural community, or non-community
based. The Commission expects that Fixed ACF support will be most
efficiently spent in non-community locations, High-Cost BSLs, and BSLs
that are part of a rural community not on a fiber or road system. The
Commission finds that locations that do not fall within those
categories are likely to be in the more densely populated areas of
Alaska like Anchorage and Fairbanks, where the business case for
providing broadband service without subsidies is much stronger. The
Commission recognizes that some commenters supported the allocation of
support on a community basis and others identified community-based
projects. Nonetheless, the Commission finds that making a determination
of eligible locations, ahead of BEAD awards, is premature. Therefore,
the Commission delegates authority to WCB to determine, after
opportunity for public notice and comment, the eligible locations and
how to allocate support among them, and, as explained further in the
following, the Commission delegates to WCB the flexibility to allocate
support to carriers that may be providing broadband speeds below 100/20
Mbps. The Commission also directs WCB to avoid duplicate high-cost
support by authorizing no more than one carrier to receive Fixed ACF
support for fixed services for each eligible location.
Public Interest Obligations. The Commission adopts general
parameters and priorities for the public interest obligations
applicable to Fixed ACF recipients. The Commission agrees with
commenters that reasonable minimum service standards help provide
consumers with a level of service that allows for meaningful personal
and community engagement, and that this is only increasingly important
as it moves into further generations. The Commission delegates
authority to WCB to determine, after opportunity for public notice and
comment, whether any changes are necessary based on the specific
determinations that will be made for eligibility and allocation of
Fixed ACF eligible areas and support allocation.
[[Page 107203]]
Speed. The Commission adopts a goal of a service speed of at least
100/20 Mbps. The Commission recently increased the definition for
advanced service to the provision of broadband service at a speed of
100/20 Mbps, and arrived at this benchmark after taking into
consideration, among other things, the speed goals for BEAD, and other
federal and state broadband deployment programs. Commenters argue that
Alaska lags behind the rest of the country in higher-speed options
specifically because previous support did not prioritize higher speeds.
Several commenters supported a minimum speed requirement of 100/20
Mbps. Although ATA supports the speed benchmark generally, it expressed
concern about requiring 100/20 Mbps at all locations. Additionally,
ARCC encouraged the Commission to adopt a policy that considers issues
that can arise with oversubscription and how that affects network
performance in relation to speed. While the BEAD program's principal
focus is to deploy service with speeds of at least 100/20 Mbps to all
locations in the state, and other broadband deployment programs have
the same speed requirement, the Commission recognizes and agree with
the record that it also is in the public interest to provide
flexibility in Alaska to tailor support for locations where, even with
government funding, it has not been feasible to achieve 100/20 Mbps
service and remains that way after BEAD awards. Therefore, the
Commission directs WCB to consider the best ways to meet the goal of
100/20 Mbps broadband internet access service, and it delegates
authority to WCB to determine, after an opportunity for notice and
comment, where supporting slower broadband internet access speeds is
consistent with section 254 of Communications Act and with the
Commission's goal of providing operational and maintenance support for
carriers that have been or will be awarded federal or state government
infrastructure support for the deployment of networks capable of
providing voice and broadband services in Alaska.
Latency. The Commission adopts a roundtrip provider network latency
goal of 100 ms or less (faster) for Fixed ACF recipients. The
Commission disagrees with commenters that argue it should dismiss
latency requirements. Latency standards have been adopted in several
successful high-cost programs in Alaska, including the Alaska Plan
Order, ACS Order and A-CAM Order, as well as in other geographically
remote and non-contiguous areas. The Commission agrees with commenters
reporting that latency is an important requirement that helps it gauge
the quality of service and ensure that providers meet the modern-day
needs of consumers. Commenters also indicate that latency performance
has improved substantially in recent years, such that 100 ms or less is
generally achievable by all technologies. Nevertheless, at this stage,
the Commission recognizes the importance of maintaining flexibility to
tailor requirements in Alaska for locations where, even with government
funding, the goal of 100 ms or less latency has not been feasible and
remains that way after BEAD awards. Therefore, the Commission directs
WCB to consider the best ways to meet the goal of 100 ms or less
latency for Fixed ACF recipients, and it delegates authority to WCB to
determine, after an opportunity for notice and comment, whether, and if
so where supporting higher (slower) than 100 ms latency may be
consistent with section 254 of Communications Act and with the
Commission's goal of providing operational and maintenance support for
carriers that have been or will be awarded federal or state government
infrastructure support for the deployment of networks capable of
providing voice and broadband services in Alaska. Therefore, Fixed ACF
recipients will be required to certify that 95 percent or more of all
peak period measurements of network round-trip latency meet the latency
standard set for the locations served. Fixed ACF recipients shall
conduct their latency network testing consistent with the current
requirements for network testing.
Data Usage. Fixed ACF recipients will be required to offer a usage
allowance that evolves over time to remain reasonably comparable to
usage by subscribers in urban areas, as was required by the Alaska
Plan. In the Alaska Connect Fund Notice, the Commission outlined the
different current standards for Alaska high-cost providers and asked
about tailoring the minimum data allowance for the Alaska Connect Fund.
ARIC urged the Commission to remove the requirement as it incentivizes
providers to set limits low and charge for additional data usage.
Alaska Public Interest Research Group (AKPIRG) suggested the Commission
establish caps on data overage charges to limit opportunistic pricing
for data. Under the USF/ICC Transformation Order, 76 FR 73830, November
29, 2011, and subsequent orders, ETCs subject to broadband public
interest obligations must provide broadband with usage allowances
reasonably comparable to those available through comparable offerings
in urban areas. There is no support in the record for holding Fixed ACF
recipients to a different standard than other high-cost recipients, and
the current standard ensures that carriers must offer a minimum usage
of at least the national average. Therefore, Fixed ACF carriers will be
required to certify that they offer a minimum usage allowance that
reflects the average usage of a majority of consumers, as annually
calculated and published by WCB and OEA.
Satellite Backhaul Exception. In the Alaska Connect Fund Notice,
the Commission sought comment on the continued need for a satellite
backhaul exemption for speed, latency, and data usage standards. In the
Alaska Plan Order, the Commission adopted an exemption from the speed,
latency, and data usage standards for carriers that rely only on the
use of satellite backhaul to deliver their service. This exemption was
based on the premise that relying on satellite was performance-limiting
and that satellite could not provide the same speeds as terrestrial
backhaul. The Commission declines to adopt a general satellite backhaul
exemption from the public interest obligations for Fixed ACF
recipients. The Commission agrees with commenters stating that
satellite-based technologies have evolved sufficiently in the last
several years and are no longer ``performance-limiting.'' Given the
developments in satellite technology, a blanket exemption does not
advance the public interest of providing advanced broadband service for
all consumers in Alaska. Further, the Commission finds that Fixed ACF
support provided for the operation and maintenance of service
presupposes that the service provided meets the public interest
standards set, regardless of backhaul technology. Therefore, the
Commission will no longer provide a blanket exemption to meeting the
public interest obligations for Fixed ACF recipients that rely
exclusively on satellite backhaul to provide service.
Alaska Reasonably Comparable Rates--Broadband and Voice. The
Commission requires recipients of Fixed ACF support, like all other
recipients of USF high-cost support, to provide voice and broadband
service at rates that are reasonably comparable to those offered in
urban areas and make such certification annually. For voice service,
ETCs are required to make an annual certification that the rates for
their voice service are in compliance with the reasonable comparability
benchmark. For broadband, an ETC has two options for demonstrating that
its rates comply
[[Page 107204]]
with this statutory requirement: certifying compliance with reasonable
comparability benchmarks or certifying compliance that it offers the
same or lower rates in rural areas as it does in urban areas. Due to
the unique challenges in Alaska, the Commission will allow Fixed ACF
recipients to comply with the Alaska-specific reasonable comparability
broadband benchmarks established annually by the WCB and OEA.
In the Alaska Connect Fund Notice, the Commission asked whether it
should consider changes to the Alaska-specific benchmarks. ARCC
suggested that Alaska-specific benchmarks were important but advocated
for waiving certain benchmarks for various carriers to avoid
oversubscription and empty promises by service providers. ATA supports
the continued use of Alaska-specific approach, but did not propose
detailed adjustments to the calculation. The Commission declines to
revise the Alaska-specific benchmark calculation as it finds there is
insufficient information at this time to justify a revision, and a full
assessment of any necessary changes will be better made following BEAD
allocation. Accordingly, the Commission delegates authority to WCB to
determine whether the methodology for determining the Alaska-specific
benchmark needs to be revisited prior the award of Fixed ACF support.
Participation Process. The Commission delegates authority to WCB to
determine a process whereby WCB makes an offer of Fixed ACF support,
which eligible carriers must affirmatively accept prior to receiving
support. The Commission directs WCB to adopt rules, after an
opportunity for public notice and comment, and provide further guidance
no later than twelve months before the start of Fixed ACF, that
outlines how providers may participate in the program, how support will
be allocated, the public interest obligations, and any other
requirements for participation in Fixed ACF. The Commission delegates
authority to WCB to collect any certifications or information it
determines is necessary to help ensure eligible carriers will be able
to meet obligations prior to being authorized for support, including
certification of ETC designation and certifications of the category for
each location included in a participant's service area.
Accountability and Oversight. The Commission relies on mandatory
deployment, reporting and testing requirements, and oversight rules to
reduce waste, fraud, and abuse of program support and ensure that
carriers are meeting their commitments to provide high-quality
broadband services. The Commission adopts its proposal to require the
same reporting, performance testing, document retention, and oversight
requirements for the Alaska Connect Fund recipients, including
penalties for failure to meet the obligations, as for Alaska Plan
carriers. Commenters generally agreed that continued oversight and
accountability for providers in Alaska is necessary in various forms.
The Commission delegates authority to WCB to determine whether
additional accountability and oversight measures are required for Fixed
ACF once the process for accepting support and support allocation have
been determined.
Annual reporting. As required in Sec. 54.313 of the Commission's
rules applicable to all high-cost support recipients, Fixed ACF
recipients shall file an FCC Form 481 on July 1 each year. Fixed ACF
recipients will also be subject to Sec. 54.314 of the Commission's
rules, which requires that support be used only for the provision,
maintenance, and upgrading of facilities and services. Further, Fixed
ACF recipients, like all USF recipients, will be subject to
requirements and certifications in Sec. Sec. 54.9, 54.10, and 54.11.
Performance Testing. WCB may adopt, after opportunity for public
notice and comment, network performance testing methodologies and non-
compliance measures that account for unique aspects providing broadband
service in Alaska and the Fixed ACF for fixed services, if necessary.
However, unless and until WCB adopts such methodologies, recipients of
Fixed ACF support for fixed services shall comply with methodologies
and non-compliance measures in effect or adopted as of the date the
Alaska Connect Fund was adopted.
Broadband Deployment Reporting. As explained in this document, the
Commission delegates authority to WCB to determine, after an
opportunity for public comment, whether it is in the public interest to
support broadband deployment through Fixed ACF following BEAD and
federal broadband funding awards. To the extent that WCB authorizes a
carrier for broadband deployment with Fixed ACF support, that carrier
shall be subject to Sec. 54.316 of the Commission's rules, which
requires high-cost support recipients with defined deployment
obligations to annually report locations where it offers broadband
service in satisfaction of public interest obligations. The Commission
delegates authority to WCB to require similar reporting from Fixed ACF
carriers that are receiving support only to maintain existing networks
but in the act of maintaining such service also increase service (e.g.,
by installing replacement equipment that enables the carrier to offer
higher speeds). The Commission delegates to WCB authority to adopt any
reporting requirements to account for this situation, recognizing that
WCB may be able to use the National Broadband Map to monitor as needed
since the carrier will not have a defined deployment obligation.
Middle-mile Reporting. Consistent with existing FCC rules and the
Alaska Plan, the Commission adopts the obligation to provide and update
maps and notify it of middle-mile availability and any service that
becomes commercially available. The Commission finds that it is in the
public interest to continue monitoring middle-mile availability and
costs in Alaska to determine how USF support is most efficiently used.
While a carrier may upgrade its network based on the newly available
middle-mile, the Commission does not necessarily require carriers to
upgrade networks during the Fixed ACF support term because Fixed ACF
prioritizes network sustaining support. The Commission also adopts a
reporting requirement for newly deployed backhaul. The Commission
requires Fixed ACF participants to submit fiber network maps or
microwave network maps in the format specified by the Bureaus covering
eligible areas and to update such maps if a recipient has deployed
middle-mile facilities in the prior calendar year that are or will be
used to support its service in eligible areas. While the Commission
adopts this reporting requirement, it nonetheless delegates to WCB the
authority to revise the reporting requirements to meet monitoring and
compliance needs for Fixed ACF support while also easing administrative
burdens, and WCB may assess how the new requirements adopted for mobile
can be leverage for fixed networks.
Compliance and Recordkeeping. Recipients of Fixed ACF support shall
be subject to the compliance measures, recordkeeping requirements and
audit requirements set forth in Sec. 54.320(a)-(c). In addition,
recipients of Fixed ACF shall be subject to the non-compliance measures
set forth in Sec. 54.320(d). The Commission directs WCB to issue
guidance on how Sec. 54.320(d) will apply to maintenance of specific
deployment, absent requirements to do additional deployment. In
addition, as noted above, Fixed ACF support recipients will be subject
to network performance testing. The Commission directs USAC,
[[Page 107205]]
under the oversight of WCB and the Office of the Managing Director, to
review and revise its audit procedures to take into account the changes
adopted in this document.
Affordability Requirement. While affordability is certainly at the
forefront of the Commission's interests, particularly in Alaska, it
declines to require the offering of a low-cost plan as a condition of
receiving Alaska Connect Fund support. The Commission finds that it
seeks improved affordability through the design of the Alaska Connect
Fund program generally and that a separate requirement to provide a
low-cost plan separate from Lifeline service is not necessary at this
time. The Commission understands the argument from some commenters that
a consumer subsidy can help affordability of service; however, it finds
that the high-cost program is not the appropriate USF program to
address that issue directly. Additionally, some of the infrastructure
programs that Fixed ACF recipients will also be participating in
already implement this requirement. Further, the Affordable
Connectivity Program (ACP) concluded on June 1, 2024 due to a lack of
additional funding from Congress, making it impossible at this time for
us to require that recipients participate in ACP or a substantially
similar successor program. Nonetheless, the Commission delegates
authority to WCB to adopt rules, after an opportunity for public
comment, on ACF provider participation in ACP, if that program is re-
authorized, or a substantially similar successor program is enacted or
adopted.
The Commission also finds that it is in the public interest to
provide carriers currently receiving USF high-cost support for service
in Alaska under the Alaska Plan, ACS Order, or A-CAM with phased down
support over a three-year period if the amount of annual support a
participant will receive in Fixed ACF is less than the amount of annual
support the participant received in ACF Transition. The Commission has
provided phase-down support to carriers in several high-cost support
programs when the amount a carrier is expected to receive going forward
is less than the amount of support a carrier receives under the current
program. While the Commission has structured phase-down slightly
differently for various high-cost programs, each phase-down is adapted
to the specifics of the program and the expected difficulties for the
providers, as well as consumers, in shifting high-cost support from one
carrier to another.
In the Alaska Connect Fund Notice, the Commission sought comment on
whether phase-down support was appropriate for a period of time as it
transitioned carriers from current Alaska support mechanisms to the
Alaska Connect Fund. The Commission did not receive comments
specifically regarding such a phase down. Nevertheless, the Commission
finds that a phase-down period of support for carriers that will
receive less Fixed ACF support than the support they are receiving
during ACF Transition or no Fixed ACF support will ensure a reasonable
transition to Fixed ACF amounts and allow carriers to plan network
expenditures accordingly to ensure continuity of service for consumers.
Beginning in January 2029, a carrier that receives support during ACF
Transition and is not eligible for Fixed ACF support or will receive
less Fixed ACF support than ACF Transition support, will receive the
following high-cost support in addition to its Fixed ACF support, as
applicable:
<bullet> The first 12 months (2029), the carrier will receive 60%
of the difference between ACF Transition and Fixed ACF support;
<bullet> The second 12 months (2030), the carrier will receive 30%
of the difference between ACF Transition and Fixed ACF support;
<bullet> The third 12 months (2031), the carrier will receive 15%
of the difference between ACF Transition and Fixed ACF support;
<bullet> Thereafter, the carrier will receive whatever, if any,
Fixed ACF support for which they are authorized for the remainder of
the support term.
Table 1--Examples of Transitional Support
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Example 1: Carrier A Example 2: Carrier B Example 3: Carrier C
receives $1 million in ACF receives $1 million in ACF receives $1 million in ACF
Support year transition support and is transition support and is transition support and is
eligible for $700,000 in eligible for $200,000 in ineligible for Fixed ACF
fixed ACF support fixed ACF support support
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2029..................... $880,000................... $680,000................... $600,000.
[$700,000 + (60% x [$200,000 + (60% x (60% x $1,000,000).
300,000)]. $800,000)].
2030..................... $790,000................... $440,000................... 300,000.
[700,000 + (30% x 300,000)] [$200,000 + (30% x (30% x $1,000,000).
$800,000)].
2031..................... $745,000................... $320,000................... 150,000.
[700,000 + (15% x 300,000)] [$200,000 + (15% x (15% x $1,000,000).
$800,000)].
2032-2034................ $700,000 annually in Fixed $200,000 annually in Fixed $0 annually in Fixed ACF
ACF support. ACF support. support.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission finds that the accountability and oversight
requirements it adopts in this document for Fixed ACF and that already
exist within its rules are sufficient to protect the success and
integrity of transitional support. However, to the extent that starting
January 1, 2029, or thereafter, a carrier only receives transitional
support for fixed services under Fixed ACF, such carrier shall remain
subject to all reporting and certification requirements it had during
the ACF Transition. The Commission delegates authority to WCB to adopt
reporting and certification tailored to phased down support. The
Commission also delegates authority to WCB to extend phase-down support
for locations that are not authorized to receive Fixed ACF support but
where the ACF Transition recipient is the only carrier offering fixed
voice service to that location, if WCB determines it is in the public
interest.
The Commission next addresses how to incorporate Tribal consent
into the Fixed ACF program. In the Alaska Connect Fund Notice, the
Commission sought comment on conditioning the receipt of Alaska Connect
Fund support for fixed services on obtaining Tribal consent and
adopting a Tribal consent framework similar to the BEAD program. Fixed
ACF is designed to prioritize support for the operation and maintenance
of already-constructed networks and not for deployment of new fixed
services networks. Tribal consent has traditionally focused on
obtaining permission to build out or provide new services on Tribal
Lands and to Native Communities. With Fixed ACF supporting already
deployed networks or networks funded and deployed under other federal
programs, many of which require Tribal consent, any Fixed ACF support
awarded to providers deploying under those
[[Page 107206]]
programs will support networks that, in many cases, were required to
obtain Tribal consent before deploying. Additionally, the Commission
reminds 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. In the concurrently adopted FNPRM, the
Commission seeks additional public comment on this issue for new
deployments under Mobile ACF and any deployments that may be authorized
under Fixed ACF.
Before the Fixed ACF term of support ends in December 2034, the
Commission anticipates that it will conduct a rulemaking to decide how
support in Alaska will continue to be provided once Fixed ACF has
concluded. Given the historic levels of investment in broadband
deployment, by 2035, the landscape of voice and broadband service in
Alaska will differ drastically from what it is today, and the
Commission will need to reconsider how best to focus USF support in
Alaska, the methodologies for distributing support, and what
obligations and standards will be necessary to reflect progress in the
marketplace. The Commission's actions in this document to establish an
ACF Transition and Fixed ACF seek to ensure that Alaska will be well
positioned with regard to fixed services at the end of 2034.
Mobile Service. As with fixed service, there continues to be a need
for Universal Service Fund support to ensure that Alaskans have access
to the same level of mobile service as consumers in the rest of the
country. In this document, the Commission extends support to Alaska
Plan mobile-provider participants after the Alaska Plan concludes on
December 31, 2026, as detailed in the following. In extending support,
the Commission makes changes to ensure the effective use of USF
funding, including ensuring funding is targeted to current generation
mobile service, avoiding duplicative support, and ensuring support is
targeted to where consumers live, work, and travel in remote Alaska.
As explained in the following, the Commission establishes two
separate approaches--one tailored towards single-support areas, and
another tailored for duplicate-support areas. In eligible single-
support areas, the Commission extends support with the ultimate goal of
achieving at least 5G-NR service at 35/3 Mbps in an outdoor stationary
environment (5G-NR 35/3 Mbps) where technically and financially
feasible by December 31, 2034. This ensures that support is targeted
towards the latest generation mobile service, while also providing
certainty about the level of support. In duplicate-support areas, the
Commission extends support through December 31, 2029, where support
recipients are to work to extend at least 4G LTE service at 5/1 Mbps in
an outdoor stationary environment (4G LTE 5/1 Mbps) by December 31,
2029 (ACF Mobile Phase I), and the Commission separately seeks comment
in the concurrently adopted FNPRM on how best to award support for the
period January 1, 2030, through December 31, 2034, for these areas (ACF
Mobile Phase II).
The Commission also updates its eligible areas determination to
remove those areas that: (i) have an unsubsidized provider offering at
least 5G-NR 7/1 Mbps in an outdoor stationary environment; (ii) have
three or more mobile providers offering at least 4G LTE 5/1 Mbps in an
outdoor stationary environment with at least one of the providers being
unsubsidized; or (iii) are inaccessible or unsafe for testing. These
measures further ensure that support is targeted to areas where it is
needed the most while maintaining accountability for how funds are
used.
All coverage analysis including all performance plans required by
the Alaska Connect Fund--i.e., for single-support areas and for
duplicate-support areas under ACF Mobile Phase I--will rely on BDC
data. Consistent with the BDC, all ACF participants must show that
consumers can receive the minimum technology level and speed with a
cell edge coverage probability of not less than 90% and a cell loading
of not less than 50%. All mobile providers will be required to file BDC
mobile verification infrastructure data annually, and mobile providers
receiving more than $5 million in support on an annual basis will be
required to conduct speed tests and submit speed test results to WTB
when the mobile providers submit their milestone certifications as
detailed in the following.
As an initial matter, the requirements under the mobile portion of
the Alaska Plan will remain in place through the end of that plan, and
the mobile portion of the Alaska Connect Fund will begin on January 1,
2027. Mobile-provider participants of the Alaska Plan remain obligated
to comply with Alaska Plan requirements through the end of the Alaska
Plan, including, inter alia, meeting their 10-year commitments by
December 31, 2026 and complying with any Alaska Plan-specific filing
requirements before and after that end date. In short, nothing in this
Order shall be read as affecting the obligations owed by mobile-support
recipients under the Alaska Plan.
As the Commission explains in the in this document, starting
January 1, 2025, mobile-provider participants of the Alaska Plan will
have their support amounts increased by 30%. While the Commission
increases the mobile support under the Alaska Plan and continues
support under that plan through the end of December 2026, in all other
aspects this increase is not a new award of funding with respect to
deployment. The increase is solely for current Alaska Plan providers
under their current Alaska Plan obligations for coverage and
deployment. The Commission recognizes that obligations will increase
under the Alaska Connect Fund, and providing more support is
appropriate in order for Alaska Plan providers to begin making
improvements towards those obligations, as well as enabling them to
better meet their Alaska Plan build-out obligations by December 31,
2026.
The Alaska Plan is a ten-year plan with the providers' final
commitments due December 31, 2026. ATA--which represents all eight
mobile-provider participants of the Alaska Plan--petitions the
Commission to start a new 10-year plan, starting in 2024 and ending
December 31, 2034. ATA argues that guaranteed support for another 10
years would provide the certainty necessary for providers to invest in
their networks. ATA has expressed concern about the ability of
providers to adequately plan for new deployments and upgrades while the
availability of support after the Alaska Plan ends is still uncertain.
In the Alaska Connect Fund Notice, the Commission sought comment on
ATA's petition to extend support until 2034, in which it requested that
the new plan begin in 2024. For mobile, current support recipients will
continue receiving support under the Alaska Plan through its original
December 31, 2026 end date, and mobile support under the Alaska Connect
Fund will begin January 1, 2027 and end on December 31, 2034, subject
to the conditions and requirements for the program. The initial support
under the Alaska Connect Fund will act as an extension of support
(extended support) after the Alaska Plan ends, with new obligations,
such as requiring all mobile providers to rely on BDC coverage data.
Some commenters join ATA and urge us to commence the Alaska Connect
Fund term as soon as possible. While the Commission recognizes those
arguments that immediate commencement of the Alaska Connect Fund term
may provide
[[Page 107207]]
stability and predictability to commit to long-term investments, or may
further enable efficient capital planning and coordination with the
BEAD and ReConnect funding opportunities, the Commission finds it is
important to ensure that mobile-provider participants of the Alaska
Plan meet the 10-year commitments they made for December 31, 2026. And
unlike fixed service, mobile-support recipients already have a single
unified end date under the Alaska Plan. In addition, because the mobile
portion of the Alaska Connect Fund is a new support fund, with new
obligations, the Commission finds it necessary to allow time for mobile
providers to transition to the new obligations before the Alaska
Connect Fund begins. In any event, because the Commission is adjusting
the support amounts for the Alaska Plan participants beginning January
1, 2025, it thinks ATA's concerns about beginning the new plan as soon
as possible are adequately addressed.
The Commission discusses the term lengths for the mobile portion of
the Alaska Connect Fund in more detail in the following. In addition,
the Commission notes that mobile providers that opt into the Alaska
Connect Fund will be required--in addition to their new obligations
detailed in this document--to maintain service at the same minimum
service levels that were required under the Alaska Plan, and they may
not provide less coverage or provide service using a less advanced
technology than the provider committed to under the Alaska Plan, as
detailed further in the following.
The mobile portion of the Alaska Connect Fund will begin after the
Alaska Plan ends (i.e., January 1, 2027) and will end on December 31,
2034. As explained in the following, mobile support will have different
support term lengths, or extension periods--as well as different
requirements--based on whether an area is a single-support area or a
duplicate-support area. For purposes of the Alaska Connect Fund, the
Commission defines single-support areas--which it anticipates will be
the substantial majority of the support areas--as areas covered by one
Alaska Plan mobile provider participant and define duplicate-support
areas as areas covered by two or more Alaska Plan mobile-provider
participants.
The Commission rejects ATA Petition'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. The Alaska Connect Fund
will begin January 1, 2027, and the initial support under the Alaska
Connect Fund will act as an extension of support (extended support)
after the Alaska Plan, with new obligations, such as requiring all
mobile providers to rely on BDC coverage data. The Commission declines
to adopt automatic extensions in one-year intervals of the Alaska
Connect Fund, as ATA requests. The support terms the Commission adopts
in this document for the mobile portion of the Alaska Connect Fund give
providers a sufficient amount of certainty, but it sets a specific end
date for the mobile portion of the Alaska Connect Fund at this time,
consistent with other high-cost support funds, so that it can re-
evaluate the broadband needs in remote Alaska to determine whether
continued high-cost support is needed and make any necessary
adjustments at that time. The Commission also rejects arguments for
annual performance reviews and full reviews of the Alaska Connect Fund
every five years. The performance plans, public interest obligations,
and accountability and oversight measures adopted in the sections in
the following will adequately ensure that providers are meeting their
deployment obligations and are held accountable for any failure to meet
their obligations.
Extension for Single-Support Areas. The Commission extends high-
cost mobile support in Alaska until December 31, 2034 for eligible
areas where only one mobile provider receives support and offers
service, if the provider meets the applicable conditions of the
extension. Specifically, if one mobile provider participant of the
Alaska Plan provides service in an area, the Commission extends support
for that provider in that area through December 31, 2034 under the
Alaska Connect Fund, subject to the increased support amounts discussed
in this document, and new obligations and limitations set forth in this
document. Universal service support is intended to ensure that areas
that the private sector would not serve, without subsidies, can enjoy
the benefits of the communications network similar to urban areas.
Areas with one supported high-cost mobile provider align with how high-
cost support was designed to operate by supporting one provider in an
area which can bring the benefits of advanced communications to areas
that lack a private sector business case. Accordingly, in areas where
only one provider offers mobile service to Alaskans, it is imperative
that the service continue to operate reliably and consistently;
otherwise, Alaskans could be left without service. In addition, to
ensure that consumers in these high-cost areas receive the same access
to advanced communications services that should be provided in all
regions of the Nation, the Commission expects the provider to upgrade
the service offered to 5G-NR in its single-support areas, where
technically and financially feasible. The Commission finds this to be a
reasonable goal because support will be extended to the provider in
those areas until December 31, 2034. Consistent with ATA's request,
this guaranteed support will enable providers to invest in upgrades to
their networks and facilities in order to ensure that consumers in
these areas are served with fast, reliable, and advanced mobile
services, while facilitating long-term planning.
Extension for Duplicate-Support Areas. Where two or more mobile-
provider participants under the Alaska Plan cover the same eligible
area, the Commission agrees in part with ATA that it should maintain
certainty and predictability for providers. The Commission also finds
it necessary, however, to balance ATA's concerns with the need to
address the problem of offering providers duplicate support long-term--
which runs counter to its USF policies. The Commission therefore
guarantees extended support in duplicate-support areas, but for a
shorter period of time than in single-support areas. Specifically, the
Commission extends support in duplicate-support areas for existing
support recipients through December 31, 2029, subject to the
limitations and additional obligations discussed in this document.
In the Alaska Connect Fund Notice, the Commission asked how it
should address duplicate support. While the record developed in this
proceeding did not provide any information directly addressing the
issue of the appropriate support term for duplicate-support areas if
the Commission were to extend support for those areas, it received
comments regarding the general issue of duplicate-support areas, and it
uses these comments as the rationale for its decisions. In addition,
GCI notes that an extension of support would allow time to further
evaluate the extent of the existence of duplicate-support areas.
The Commission takes action to remove duplicative high-cost mobile
support after a short-term extension of support for providers in those
areas. It is important to ensure that universal service funds are used
in the most efficient manner and not used to prop up competition where
it already exists. Nevertheless, the Commission cannot conclude that
subsidies are unnecessary to maintain service in these areas solely
because two or more subsidized
[[Page 107208]]
providers currently serve those areas, and it recognizes commenters in
the record who urge the Commission to proceed cautiously before
mitigating potential areas of overlap. The Commission therefore is not
removing these areas entirely from eligibility in the Alaska Connect
Fund because--without high-cost support--it is possible that no
provider would have an incentive to offer mobile service in these
areas, and it would risk the number of service providers going from two
(or more) to zero in an area if it were to withdraw support entirely.
The Commission does not guarantee support to both (or more) providers
in these areas indefinitely, however, given the concerns of providing
duplicate support to multiple providers, and instead seek comment in
the concurrently adopted FMPRM, infra, on a framework for allocating
and distributing funds in these areas after December 31, 2029.
The Commission finds that this approach best balances several
competing concerns. This framework allows for a period of certainty so
that the mobile service provider participants of the Alaska Plan can
continue network planning and making contractual arrangements in the
short term if they choose to opt into the Alaska Connect Fund, thereby
continuing to build on the progress of the Alaska Plan. And while the
Commission does not need time to evaluate the extent of duplication,
the additional time will allow the development of a more fulsome record
regarding how best to address it. While removing support from high-
revenue areas may affect how providers offer coverage in surrounding
areas, the Commission notes that providers may retain mobile facilities
in those areas; in areas deemed ineligible, however, they just cannot
use Alaska Connect Fund support for those mobile facilities. The
extended support and notice of the options in the concurrently adopted
FNPRM, however, allow the providers in duplicate-support areas time for
network planning necessary to position themselves to compete to win the
support in those areas or be ready to reallocate the support they were
using to other eligible areas.
The Commission delegates authority to WTB to resolve any
ambiguities as to the classification of support areas or the
determination of which provider receives support in an area if they
arise during the course of the Alaska Connect Fund. Support amounts per
area are addressed in the concurrently adopted FNPRM. The Commission
delegates authority to WTB to resolve support amounts per area after
the comment cycle of the concurrently adopted FNPRM concludes. In case
another mechanism cannot be implemented before the start of 2030 for
duplicate-support areas, the Commission delegates to WTB the authority
to extend ACF Mobile Phase I after notice and comment, until ACF Mobile
Phase II is adopted, or until December 31, 2034, whichever is earlier.
The Commission also delegates to WTB the ability to impose additional
requirements, after notice and comment, in duplicate-support areas for
mobile providers to receive extended support under ACF Mobile Phase I
beyond December 31, 2029. Support would continue unaltered under such
circumstances until ACF Mobile Phase II in duplicate-support areas
begins.
The Commission finds that its approach of adopting two plans
specifically tailored for single- and duplicate-support areas best
addresses the concerns of ensuring Alaskans in remote areas have
continued broadband service and that mobile-provider participants have
a level of certainty in support for their network planning and
deployment, while also taking steps to address duplicate support.
In the Alaska Connect Fund Notice, the Commission sought comment
generally on what the Alaska Connect Fund for mobile support should
look like, as well as 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. The Commission also sought comment on how to
address duplicate support going forward in Alaska. The Commission
observed that it is generally not the policy of the USF to subsidize
competition, but under the Alaska Plan, some areas had as many as three
mobile-provider participants providing mobile service in the same
eligible area. The Alaska Connect Fund Notice asked how the Commission
should address situations where two or more prospective participants of
the Alaska Connect Fund cover the same geographic area, and whether it
should continue to provide universal service support to two or more
providers in the same area. The Commission further asked whether it
should allow only one subsidized provider to continue receiving support
in a duplicate-support area, or alternatively whether duplicate-support
areas should be deemed ineligible for support. Finally, the Commission
sought comment on the appropriate method to determine which provider
should receive support for duplicate-support areas, and the appropriate
manner to redistribute funds that were going to such areas.
Commenters varied in their arguments on how best to address
duplicate support. ATA, which has members that receive duplicate
support, argued that the Commission should continue to provide support
to these areas to ensure continuity of service and indicated that if
support in duplicate-support areas is eliminated, it would prevent such
providers from serving surrounding areas. Additionally, ATA claims that
providers in overlapping areas rely on the other provider's network in
certain instances (leases and roaming) and without continued universal
service support, there is a risk a provider will no longer be able to
service that area. Joining in ATA's position, GCI cautions against
automatically excluding areas from Alaska Connect Fund support due to
the presence of multiple providers, noting that it is critical the
Commission avoid a situation where it decreases services available to
Alaskans. Ketchikan Public Utilities notes that due to its high cost in
Alaska, middle-mile infrastructure is often utilized by both the
facility owner and one or more competitors, and that such
infrastructure may not be built absent support comparable to the Alaska
Plan. Alaska Middle Mile Alliance (AMMA), on the other hand, recommends
that the Commission redistribute the duplicate support to middle-mile
support to help providers fulfill their build-out commitments.
While commenters urge the Commission to preserve support for
existing mobile services even where they overlap, the Commission finds
that eliminating duplicate support continues to be the most effective
policy for achieving its universal service goals. The Commission
adopted this policy after evaluating over a decade of experience
supporting multiple networks in the same area and determining that it
should no longer subsidize competition, and the Commission has sought
to eliminate duplicate, high-cost mobile support in Alaska. The
Commission finds that the record does not support departing from this
policy goal by providing long-term duplicate support in the Alaska
Connect Fund. The Commission also rejects AMMA's proposal to
redistribute duplicate support to middle mile as inappropriate. The
Commission finds that redistributed support from duplicate-support
areas may be better spent expanding and upgrading last-mile networks in
unserved and underserved areas for the purposes of the Alaska Connect
Fund, as other prominent federal broadband programs
[[Page 107209]]
may not include support for last-mile mobile services in Alaska. While
the Commission will not provide duplicate support in the long-term, it
agrees that it should not jeopardize potential services to Alaskans in
the near term.
Accordingly, in areas eligible for support, the Commission will
distinguish between single-support areas and duplicate-support areas in
establishing support terms and requirements under the mobile portion of
the Alaska Connect Fund. As explained in this document, in single-
support areas, the Commission extends support for current participants
until December 31, 2034. However, in duplicate-support areas, the
Commission guarantees support for current participants until December
31, 2029, and it seeks comment in the concurrently adopted FNPRM on how
best to award support to a single provider in those areas after that
time through the end of December 2034. In the Alaska Plan Order, the
Commission deemed some remote areas as ineligible if there was evidence
that the private sector would serve the area without support. The
Commission updates its definition of ineligible areas here, and where,
as of December 31, 2024, there is an unsubsidized provider covering
that area with 5G-NR service at least 7/1 Mbps in an outdoor stationary
environment or three or more mobile providers--with at least one of
those providers being unsubsidized--covering the area with 4G LTE
service of at least 5/1 Mbps in an outdoor stationary environment,
those areas are ineligible for support as those areas have demonstrated
that they would receive service absent high-cost support. WTB, in
coordination with OEA, will publish a map showing all ineligible and
supported areas in Alaska, as detailed in the following.
Because the Alaska Connect Fund will rely on data from the BDC, the
Commission will use the H3 standardized, open-source geospatial
indexing system developed by Uber Technologies, Inc.--which is used in
the BDC--for the mobile portion of the Alaska Connect Fund. In the
context of the National Broadband Map, the BDC mobile broadband
coverage areas submitted by providers are overlaid with H3 resolution 9
hexagon area (hex-9s) and, in the National Broadband Map, if the
centroid of the hex-9 overlaps the raw coverage area, then the hex-9 is
considered covered for purposes of displaying coverage. Mobile
broadband coverage data is also made available for download from the
National Broadband Map based on hex-9s. Given the hex-9s' relatively
small size of approximately 0.1 square kilometers on average, they can
be aggregated to closely correspond to any Census geography (e.g.,
census tract or block groups).
In the Alaska Connect Fund Notice, the Commission sought comment on
its proposal of using the H3 system and asked a number of questions
about whether the hex-9 resolution was the appropriate level for
identifying geographic areas eligible for support. While ATA argued
that the Commission should continue to use census blocks, OptimERA
commented that hex-9s give good resolution and the ability for the
Commission to monitor providers to ensure they are meeting build-out
obligations. In order to align the Commission's analysis with the BDC,
it rejects ATA's suggestion to continue to use census blocks as the
basis of analysis, and rely on the H3 system. As in the Alaska Connect
Fund Notice, the Commission finds the that ``[t]he 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.''
Because the Commission relies on the H3 system to align with the BDC,
it does not use census blocks as the minimum geographic level of
analysis. The Commission agrees with OptimERA that hex-9s give good
resolution and the ability for the Commission to monitor providers to
ensure they are meeting build-out obligations, and nothing in the
record disputes the benefits of using the H3 system at hex-9 resolution
level. The BDC mobile broadband coverage is displayed down to the hex-9
resolution on the National Broadband Map, and such data are made
available for download for easy public understanding of approximately
where there is coverage or where coverage is deficient in Alaska. For
these same reasons, the Commission has used the H3 system at hex-9
resolution for defining the eligible areas for the 5G Fund. The
Commission is persuaded that the same system and resolution should also
apply for the Alaska Connect Fund. While the Commission does not make
the minimum level of analysis the census block, it does rely on census
tracts where analysis of hex-9s needs to be aggregated. Aggregating at
the census-block level is often too small an area for a meaningful
aggregated analysis of hex-9s, but aggregation of hex-9s at the census-
tract level offers the benefits of integrating census data with the BDC
data and the H3 system while keeping the areas referenced in
performance plans a reasonable size.
Coverage at the Hex-9 Level. The Commission will use the following
methodology to determine whether and how a hex-9 is covered for
purposes of the mobile portion of the Alaska Connect Fund--for example,
to determine single- and duplicate-support areas, as well as for other
purposes such as determining whether a provider has met its
commitments. The Commission will determine whether a hex-9 is covered
by a specific speed or technology--or by a specific provider or
providers--by examining coverage of the hex-11s that comprise the hex-
9. Hex-11s are a finer resolution of hexagons available under the H3
geospatial indexing system. A hex-9 will be deemed to be covered if at
least 70% of the hex-11s in the hex-9 are covered at the centroid, by
the relevant provider and/or technology. For example, to determine
whether the centroid of a hex-11 is covered by 4G LTE, the Commission
will overlay hex-11 areas on BDC mobile coverage maps. Any hex-11 whose
centroid shows coverage by 4G LTE service is considered covered and is
counted in the number of covered hex-11s. For the parent hex-9 to be
considered covered, the number of hex-11s deemed to be covered must be
at least 70% of the total number of hex-11s in the hex-9. Similarly, to
determine that a hex-9 meets other specific criteria, at least 70% of
the component hex-11s must meet the criteria. The Commission has taken
a similar approach in the context of the 5G Fund, and it finds it
appropriate to apply that approach here for the mobile portion of the
Alaska Connect Fund. No commenter provided any alternatives to
determining how the geographic unit is covered if it applies an H3
system.
As detailed in the following, Alaska Connect Fund mobile provider
participants must commit to serve the hex-9s that overlap with the
areas that they now serve (under the Alaska Plan) and any additional
areas, at the relevant speeds and technologies discussed in the
following, and committed to in their Alaska Connect Fund performance
plans.
In this section, the Commission sets forth the requirements for
eligible providers and eligible areas for the extended-support portion
of the Alaska Connect Fund (i.e., single-support areas and duplicate-
support areas under ACF Mobile Phase I). Eligible areas, including
single- and duplicate-support areas, will be published in a map to
ensure providers understand the extent of these areas for planning
purposes. The Commission also sets forth a process for providers that
were receiving support in areas now deemed ineligible to provide
comparable service elsewhere to retain the same level of
[[Page 107210]]
support under the Alaska Connect Fund.
The Commission limits eligibility for Alaska Connect Fund extended-
support--i.e., support for single-support areas and for duplicate-
support areas under ACF Mobile Phase I--to the current mobile provider
participants of the Alaska Plan. Adopting this limit for single-support
areas and for duplicate-support areas under ACF Mobile Phase I will
properly leverage mobile providers with existing long-term commitments,
the networks they already have in place, and the progress that they
have already made pursuant to their commitments. Although the
Commission recognizes some commenters' arguments for fair and equal
access to Alaska Connect Fund for all providers, in balancing the needs
of Alaskan consumers and the importance of leveraging the existing
networks that were deployed in Alaska with universal service funds, the
Commission finds the record supports its decision to limit eligibility
to existing Alaska Plan mobile provider participants. As detailed in
the concurrently adopted FNPRM, ACF Mobile Phase II and the unserved
areas auction may allow participation by all qualifying competitive
ETCs.
Opt In. To participate in the 2016 Alaska Plan, competitive ETCs
that met the eligibility criteria were deemed to have opted into the
plan if they had submitted performance plans. The Alaska Connect Fund
Notice noted the opt-in process from the Alaska Plan and sought comment
on whether to follow the same structure for determining participants in
the Alaska Connect Fund. No commenter offered a response in support of
or against adopting the same opt-in process.
For the mobile providers participating in the Alaska Plan, the
Commission follows a similar process for opting into the Alaska Connect
Fund. The eight mobile-provider participants of the Alaska Plan can opt
into extended support under the Alaska Connect Fund for single-support
and duplicate-support areas under ACF Mobile Phase I by submitting
their performance plans to WTB for approval, consistent with the
requirements of this Order, on or before September 1, 2026. Consistent
with the Alaska Plan, the Commission finds opting in via submission of
performance plans to be the appropriate step, as it requires an
unambiguous affirmative step that signals providers' commitment in
receiving the extended support. The Commission requires the submission
of performance plans on or before September 1, 2026, as it finds this
date provides adequate time for providers to make an informed decision
about their commitments under their performance plans before they are
submitted.
The Commission sought but did not receive comment on phasing down
support for providers that do not opt into the Alaska Connect Fund. For
Alaska Plan mobile providers that choose not to opt into the Alaska
Connect Fund, their support will end with the Alaska Plan on December
31, 2026. If any providers do not have their final performance plans
approved by WTB by December 31, 2026, those providers' support may be
delayed.
Ineligibility Due to Noncompliance. An Alaska Plan mobile provider
that opts into the Alaska Connect Fund may have its Alaska Connect Fund
support delayed, or may be deemed ineligible from the Alaska Connect
Fund, if 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 an Alaska Plan
build-out milestone. In such case, WTB will notify the provider and
give an opportunity to respond before support is delayed or the mobile
provider is deemed ineligible for the Alaska Connect Fund. In the
Alaska Connect Fund Notice, the Commission noted that a number of
mobile providers failed to meet their interim commitments under the
Alaska Plan, and asked whether eligibility to participate in the Alaska
Connect Fund should be limited if a provider failed to meet its
commitments. The Commission agrees with commenters that support some
limits to the eligibility of providers who fail to meet their service
thresholds and required obligations under the Alaska Plan. These
include public interest obligations, such as timely data submissions,
that could affect the assessment of whether providers have met all of
their Alaska Plan obligations. As the Alaska Connect Fund is dependent
upon BDC data, ongoing delays in full and proper submission of BDC data
may also cause ineligibility in the Alaska Connect Fund.
If an Alaska Plan provider is deemed ineligible for the Alaska
Connect Fund, its support under the Alaska Plan will not be subject to
phase down but will terminate at the end of the Alaska Plan (on
December 31, 2026). For a provider deemed ineligible, the Commission
chooses to end support, rather than phase it down, because the
provider's ineligibility indicates an unwillingness or inability to
meet the commitments the provider had already made--despite receiving
high-cost support under the Alaska Plan for ten years. The Commission
does not consider it to be a responsible use of universal service funds
to give support to providers under the Alaska Connect Fund when they
did not comply with their previous obligations and are not providing
the services they promised to deliver to their customers under the
Alaska Plan. Because the mobile portion of the Alaska Connect Fund acts
as an extension of support (with new obligations), mobile providers
must be in good standing to continue to receive support. The Commission
does not find it an efficient use of universal service funds to
continue to give support to a provider that did not use its support
within that time to meet its obligations. If WTB determines that an
Alaska Plan mobile provider did not meet its Alaska Plan buildout
obligations after the commencement of the Alaska Connect Fund, and also
determines that the mobile provider is not eligible to receive Alaska
Connect Fund mobile support, WTB can take all actions necessary to
recover Alaska Connect Fund support, including those set forth in
Sec. Sec. 54.320(c) and (d). In addition, this does not impact any
separate actions related to Sec. Sec. 54.320(c) and (d) with respect
to the Alaska Plan final milestone.
The Commission delegates authority to WTB to determine whether an
individual Alaska Plan mobile provider is ineligible for the Alaska
Connect Fund or will have its support under the Alaska Connect Fund
delayed temporarily until it meets its outstanding obligations under
the Alaska Plan, based on the mobile provider's compliance with Alaska
Plan and BDC obligations. As part of this delegation, WTB may determine
whether the provider is ineligible for the Alaska Connect Fund as a
whole, whether it is ineligible for specific coverage areas based on
noncompliance (and if ineligible in specific areas, to what extent its
support will be reduced), or whether the provider is eligible to begin
receiving Alaska Connect Fund support once it comes into compliance.
The Commission concludes that Alaska Connect Fund support can be
used to provide mobile service anywhere in Alaska, except for the
following areas, which are considered ineligible under the Alaska
Connect Fund: (i) areas that were previously ineligible due to being in
a nonremote or competitive area under the Alaska Plan; (ii) areas where
an unsubsidized mobile provider is offering 5G-NR service at minimum
speeds of 7/1 Mbps in an outdoor stationary environment based on BDC
coverage data as of December 31, 2024; (iii) areas in which three or
more mobile providers--with at least one of those providers being
[[Page 107211]]
unsubsidized--are offering at least 4G LTE service at minimum speeds of
5/1 Mbps in an outdoor stationary environment based on BDC coverage
data as of December 31, 2024; and (iv) areas deemed inaccessible or
unsafe for testing. Extended support may be used to support last-mile
mobile service in all areas of Alaska besides these ineligible areas,
consistent with the mandate to ensure coverage where Americans live,
work, and travel.
In the Alaska Connect Fund Notice, while generally seeking comment
on how to determine eligible areas for the mobile portion of the Alaska
Connect Fund, the Commission asked whether any changes needed to be
made to the eligible areas criteria adopted in the Alaska Plan. The
Commission specifically sought comment on whether changes needed to be
made to the requirement that an eligible area needed to have less than
85% of the population covered by 4G LTE service of providers that were
either unsubsidized or ineligible for frozen support as of December 31,
2014. The Commission noted that in the 5G Fund Further Notice, 88 FR
66781, September 28, 2023, it proposed to make ineligible those areas
served with 5G-NR at speeds of at least 7/1 Mbps by an unsubsidized
provider, and it sought comment on whether this proposal could apply to
the Alaska Connect Fund. The Commission also noted situations where as
many as three mobile providers were receiving support and serving the
same eligible area under the Alaska Plan, and asked how it should
address situations in which two or more prospective participants in the
Alaska Connect Fund cover the same geographic area.
While ATA asks the Commission not to remove support in areas where
an unsubsidized provider offers service, this is inconsistent with
Commission policy to be fiscally responsible and to ensure that limited
USF funding is used efficiently. The Commission concludes that
continuing to subsidize areas where there already is an unsubsidized
competitor offering service is an inefficient use of limited resources,
would not lead to a loss of service if funds were removed from the
area, and could limit its ability to expand 5G coverage to as many
Alaskan areas as possible.
Quintillion argues that the Alaska Connect Fund should support
projects in the ``same categories of eligible areas as the Alaska Plan,
as defined by current data from the updated National Broadband Map and
the State of Alaska's Broadband Office Map, in order to foster
competition and provide affordable service to low-income populations.''
As an initial matter, the Commission concludes that areas that were
previously ineligible under the Alaska Plan will again be ineligible
under the Alaska Connect Fund. The Commission also updates the category
of ineligible areas based on receiving mobile service from an
unsubsidized provider to account for the target technology and speed of
the Alaska Connect Fund--5G-NR service of at least 7/1 Mbps in an
outdoor stationary environment--based on information from the
Commission's National Broadband Map, as required by the Broadband DATA
Act. The Commission additionally classifies as ineligible those areas
with three or more mobile providers offering 4G LTE service of at least
5/1 Mbps in an outdoor stationary environment--with at least one of
those providers being unsubsidized--for the same reasons it deems areas
with an unsubsidized 5G-NR provider ineligible. Further, the Commission
deems ineligible those areas that are not able to be speed tested, as
it finds this consistent with its responsibility to protect the success
and integrity the Commission's high-cost program.
Areas that were Previously Ineligible in the Alaska Plan. In the
Alaska Plan, an area was deemed ineligible if it was a nonremote area
or an area served by an unsubsidized or ineligible provider covering
85% of the census block with 4G LTE service as of December 31, 2014.
The remote areas include all of Alaska except the ACS-Anchorage
incumbent study area, the ACS-Juneau incumbent study area, the
Fairbanks zone 1 disaggregation zone in the ACS-Fairbanks incumbent
study area, and the Chugiak 1 and 2 and Eagle River 1 and 2
disaggregation zones of the Matanuska Telephone Association incumbent
study area (collectively, the non-remote areas). For the remote areas
that were ineligible due to an unsubsidized or ineligible provider
offering 4G LTE as of December 31, 2014, an early version of the Alaska
Population Distribution Model was used to identify and disqualify those
blocks. No commenters in the record argue that previously ineligible
areas should be eligible. Accordingly, the Commission finds that
previously ineligible areas are also ineligible under the mobile
portion of the Alaska Connect Fund.
Areas that Offer Unsubsidized 5G-NR Service and Areas with Three or
More Providers Offering at least 4G LTE Mobile Service with at least
one Unsubsidized 4G LTE Provider. Based on BDC availability data as of
December 31, 2024, areas with an unsubsidized provider offering at
least 7/1 Mbps 5G-NR in an outdoor stationary environment and areas
with three or more mobile providers offering at least 5/1 Mbps 4G LTE
in an outdoor stationary environment--with at least one of those
providers being unsubsidized--are also ineligible for support. The
Commission and the universal service program are not intended to
subsidize competition. Providing high-cost support in areas where there
is already competition with advanced mobile service runs contrary to
universal service policy the Commission has advocated since the USF/ICC
Transformation Order. While the Alaska Plan Order contemplated that
multiple subsidized 4G LTE mobile providers may arise in an area due to
how the Alaska Plan operated, areas that already have an unsubsidized
mobile provider that offers at least 5G-NR at 7/1 Mbps or three or more
mobile providers that offer at least 4G LTE at 5/1 Mbps in an outdoor
stationary environment--with at least one of those providers being
unsubsidized--are evidence that the area does not need support to yield
private-sector investment--there is already competition in that area.
First, as the Alaska Connect Fund seeks to ensure 5G-NR is deployed
to remote Alaskans that would not otherwise have such service, areas
where 5G-NR is already deployed without use of support demonstrates
that high-cost support is unnecessary for such deployment in that area.
This approach mirrors the Commission's approach in the Alaska Plan, in
which it determined that areas covered by unsubsidized providers of 4G
LTE (the target technology at the time) were ineligible for support.
Here, the Commission updates those ineligibility criteria based on the
target technology and speed for the mobile portion of the Alaska
Connect Fund and other high-cost support mechanisms, consistent with
its proposal.
Likewise, an area that already has three or more providers offering
at least 4G LTE service at 5/1 Mbps in an outdoor stationary
environment--with at least one of those providers being unsubsidized--
indicates that there is a private-sector case for the area. At least
one unsubsidized provider in the area is attempting to make that case
even with at least two other mobile providers potentially receiving a
subsidy while competing against the unsubsidized provider. It is not
consistent with the principles of the universal service program to
attempt to pick winners and losers in that market by subsidizing
competition against a provider that needs no such subsidy to offer
[[Page 107212]]
comparable services while competing against not just one provider but
at least two other providers in that market. As such, where there are
three mobile providers of at least 4G LTE service at 5/1 Mbps in an
area--with at least one of those providers being unsubsidized--there
are private sector incentives to offer advanced mobile services to
those areas, and the Commission's remove them from eligibility for
high-cost mobile support. The Commission will, however, allow mobile
providers that currently receive support under the Alaska Plan for
covering these areas that are newly deemed ineligible to retain their
support if they commit to cover a comparable uncovered area in place of
the newly ineligible areas. The Commission outlines the requirements
and process for providers to submit their comparable service areas in
the following.
Areas Unable to be Tested. In the Alaska Connect Fund Notice, the
Commission sought comment on any changes it should consider in
determining which areas would be eligible for support in the Alaska
Connect Fund, and it did not receive any comments on how to address the
areas in Alaska that are unable to be tested. Given the lessons learned
from the Commission's implementation of the Alaska Plan, areas that are
unable to be tested are also ineligible for Alaska Connect Fund
support.
In the Alaska Plan, providers receiving over $5 million annually in
high-cost support were required to support their milestone submissions
with data from drive tests showing mobile transmissions to and from the
network meeting or exceeding the speeds delineated in the approved
performance plans. These drive tests could be conducted by means other
than in automobiles on roads, recognizing the unique terrain and lack
of road networks in Alaska. Providers could demonstrate coverage of an
area with a statistically significant number of tests in the vicinity
of residences being covered. In addition, some of the providers
receiving $5 million or less annually were subject to drive test
auditing by USAC. During the course of drive testing, FCC staff learned
that some areas were, in reality, inaccessible or unsafe for testing,
despite the fact that: (i) the Alaska Population Distribution Model
indicated that those areas were populated, (ii) the FCC Form 477 data
indicated that the provider had coverage over that population, and
(iii) the performance plans indicated that the providers were receiving
credit for providing coverage to the population included in those
areas. However, when drive testing was attempted to be performed in
these areas, the areas were not able to be tested and were not
accessible for testing, and other accommodations had to be made, such
as by allowing an uncrewed aircraft system (UAS) to test these areas.
Where areas are inaccessible or unsafe for testing, the Commission
will consider them inaccessible or unsafe for consumer usage and not
allow support to be used for those areas. This is consistent with the
principle that mobile high-cost support should be available where
people ``live, work, or travel.'' Moreover, to protect the success and
integrity of the ACF, all support areas must be verifiable, and areas
that cannot be tested cannot be verified. Consequently, areas that
cannot be tested practically and safely are ineligible.
In determining whether an area is ineligible under this category,
the Commission allows areas that can be tested with an uncrewed
aircraft (UA) to be considered eligible for Alaska Connect Fund
purposes, so long as such testing is possible and otherwise
permissible. People frequently travel and visit areas where there are
no Fabric locations, such as along roads, snow mobile routes, hunting
areas, bodies of water, or hiking trails. In Alaska, some areas where
people can ``live, work, or travel'' can cause safety concerns for
network testing purposes that can be addressed by UA testing. As such,
while the Commission may require only on-the-ground testing in some
areas, it will allow UA testing as a safe means to test other areas in
Alaska for Alaska Connect Fund purposes when UA usage is otherwise
permissible. This action is consistent with past Commission orders
recognizing the ``unique challenges of providing communications
services in rural Alaska'' that are not applicable to mobile providers
in other parts of the United States.
As detailed in the following, providers can be required to test any
hex-9 they commit to cover under the Alaska Connect Fund. Hex-9s that
are inaccessible during all seasons or are a safety hazard to test at
all times of the year are ineligible for support, and providers can
voluntarily submit any areas to WTB at the hex-9 level they believe
should be deemed ineligible because they cannot be tested or tested
safely. It is the providers' responsibility to know that they are using
support consistent with these requirements. Where a provider claims
credit for hex-9s in its coverage areas, providers may lose support in
proportion to the hex-9s that are later deemed ineligible. Again,
providers who currently receive support under the Alaska Plan for these
areas newly deemed ineligible under the Alaska Connect Fund may commit
to cover comparable uncovered areas in order to retain their support,
as discussed in the following.
To ensure that all providers fully understand which areas are
eligible and ineligible for Alaska Connect Fund mobile support, and of
those that are eligible, which are in duplicate-support, single-
support, or other eligible areas, the Commission delegates authority to
WTB, in coordination with OEA, to publish a map or maps of these areas
and seek comment on such maps. The map or maps would identify all such
areas on a hex-9 basis. The Commission directs WTB, in coordination
with OEA, to publish the preliminary map or maps, based on mobile
providers' BDC mobile availability data as of December 31, 2024, no
later than October 1, 2025. The map or maps will rely on BDC data and
information learned about the areas. Such a map or maps will help
reduce any potential misunderstandings regarding where a provider is
permitted to use support. Mobile providers seeking support under the
Alaska Connect Fund must use the Eligible-Areas Map to determine the
areas in Alaska that are eligible for support.
The Commission delegates authority to WTB, in coordination with
OEA, to seek comment on the maps' accuracy, to resolve any disputes
that may arise over the classification of an area, and to seek comment
on the Eligible-Areas Map(s) after it is published on or before October
1, 2025. The Commission also delegates authority to WTB, in
coordination with OEA, to release, in conjunction with release of the
Eligible-Areas Map(s), information on the eligible mobile providers'
hex-9 coverage (e.g., number of hex-9s each provider covers by census
tract; number of hex-9s in ineligible areas) based on mobile providers'
BDC availability data as of December 31, 2024, if WTB, in coordination
with OEA, finds such information to be necessary for development of
mobile providers' performance plans. In addition, the Commission
delegates authority to WTB, in coordination with OEA, to seek comment
periodically to update the map(s) throughout the course of the Alaska
Connect Fund, as necessary. For example, this could occur as new areas
that are deemed inaccessible for testing are discovered, as uncovered
areas become ``single-support areas'' under the comparable service area
mechanism, or to reflect later vintages of BDC availability data, as
appropriate.
The Commission will allow Alaska Connect Fund mobile-provider
[[Page 107213]]
participants that will no longer receive support for a newly ineligible
area or areas to continue receiving the same level of support if they
cover a comparable number of hex-9s elsewhere. The Commission sets
forth the parameters for covering a comparable number of hex-9s in the
following.
In the Alaska Connect Fund Notice, the Commission asked, in the
context of duplicate support, whether it should ``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.'' Because the extended support under the Alaska
Connect Fund (i.e., for single-support areas and duplicate-support
areas under ACF Mobile Phase I) is intended to give providers certainty
of support for network planning and deployment, the Commission finds it
reasonable to give mobile providers an opportunity to retain support
even if areas that they cover become newly ineligible under the
extended support for Alaska Connect Fund. The Commission will not,
however, allocate all of the Alaska Plan mobile provider's support to
its remaining eligible areas, as ATA suggests, because it finds that it
would not be a prudent and efficient use of high-cost support to
provide the same support to offer less coverage. Moreover, even though
the Commission set higher deployment goals under the Alaska Connect
Fund, the 30% support increase--which begins in January 2025 and
extends through the duration of the Alaska Connect Fund--is intended to
address a provider's deployment and service needs for its entire
coverage area. If a provider is no longer eligible to receive support
for certain areas in its coverage area, it must cover additional areas
to maintain the same level of support.
Determining Comparable Areas Before Performance Plan Submission. To
retain support, providers currently receiving support under the Alaska
Plan for coverage of newly ineligible areas must use their Alaska
Connect Fund support to cover a comparable number of otherwise
uncovered hex-9s elsewhere, subject to claw back in their support if
they do not do so. To be considered ``comparable,'' the Commission
expects a provider to cover the same number of uncovered hex-9s as the
number of hex-9s that were ineligible, unless the mobile-provider
participant of the Alaska Connect Fund can provide justification that a
lower number of hex-9s that it would be covering elsewhere is
``comparable'' to the number of newly ineligible hex-9s, as described
in the following. If, for example, the Eligible-Areas Map reveals that
100 hex-9s that an Alaska Plan mobile provider was covering are deemed
ineligible in the Alaska Connect Fund, then that provider would have to
commit to cover 100 different hex-9s that are shown as uncovered in the
Eligible-Areas Map (or a lower number of hex-9s, if it justifies why a
lower number is still comparable). If it does not commit to cover a
comparable number of hex-9s, the provider may not retain the same level
of support it was receiving for the 100 hex-9s that are ineligible.
Providers must incorporate their comparable areas into their
performance plans under the Alaska Connect Fund, for WTB approval.
Specifically, each mobile provider must remove the ineligible hex-9s
from its commitment, and in a separate category in the performance
plan, specify how many comparable hex-9s it commits to cover, by census
tract, as detailed in the following. The Commission delegates authority
to WTB, in coordination with OEA, to work with providers in their
submissions of ``comparable number of hex-9s'' to meet the requirements
of this section. Where a provider commits to cover the same number of
uncovered hex-9s, that will be considered a safe harbor, and a provider
will have such coverage deemed ``comparable'' to the coverage where it
no longer has support. However, if a provider wishes to commit to fewer
hex-9s than the number of hex-9s that were deemed ineligible, it must
demonstrate why this lower number constitutes ``comparable'' coverage.
For instance, a provider may demonstrate that the newly covered, fewer
number of hex-9s contain the same value or more than the newly
ineligible hex-9s because they cover more BSLs or area of significance
to the local community. The Commission delegates authority to WTB, in
coordination with OEA, to make the determination of whether a provider
is covering a ``comparable number of hex-9s.''
Once approved, comparable areas will be treated as part of the
provider's single-support areas, subject to the deployment obligations
and performance requirements for those areas. Where an Alaska Connect
Fund recipient covers a new, uncovered hex-9, it will be considered a
single-support area attributed to the provider that shows coverage to
that hex-9 first, based on BDC data. In the event both providers first
report coverage for the same area in the same data set or one
provider's earlier filed data is deemed inaccurate, the hex-9 will be
considered a single-support area attributed to whichever provider has
its updated performance plan accepted first.
The Commission delegates authority to WTB, in coordination with
OEA, to resolve any ambiguities to the classification of support areas
as ineligible, duplicate-support, single-support areas, and other
eligible areas--including for ``comparable areas''; to determine which
provider receives support in an area if such ambiguities arise during
the course of the Alaska Connect Fund, as discussed in this document;
and to determine support amounts for these areas, as needed, after
opportunity for public comment on this issue in response to the
concurrently adopted FNPRM. Where an Alaska Plan mobile-provider
participant does not have an updated performance plan approved by WTB
with comparable areas for the Alaska Connect Fund, that provider will
have its proportional support phased down, beginning 90 days after
being notified by WTB that it is receiving support in an ineligible
area or by January 1, 2027, whichever is later. Mobile-provider
participants that have new performance plans with comparable areas
approved by WTB may receive restoration of the support that was phased
down for the areas that the comparable areas replaced.
Determining Comparable Areas After Performance Plans. Recipients of
ACF mobile extended support may need to cover a comparable number of
hex-9s at different times after initial performance plans are accepted
and during the course of the Alaska Connect Fund, if an area of
inaccessible hex-9s is discovered. For areas where providers may lose
support because an area is deemed ineligible after their performance
plan has been accepted, providers will still have an opportunity to
retain support by committing to cover a comparable number of uncovered
hex-9s elsewhere. For example, if a provider committed to cover 100
hex-9s and is covering exactly 100 hex-9s, and 10 of that provider's
hex-9s are deemed inaccessible for testing, then the provider must meet
its Alaska Connect Fund commitment by covering 10 new hex-9s (unless it
justifies that a lower number of hex-9s are comparable) and reflect
that and the census tract where it is covering the comparable hex-9s in
an updated performance plan. The mobile provider must provide a
notation in the performance plan for the comparable hex-9s, identifying
in which census tracts the ineligible hex-9s are located and how many
of those hex-9s are being replaced by any particular group of
comparable hex-9s. The Commission delegates authority to
[[Page 107214]]
WTB, in coordination with OEA, to require additional clarifying
information that allows identification and determination of which
comparable hex-9s are replacing which group of ineligible hex-9s. As
providers discover ineligible hex-9s after their performance plans are
approved, they must remove those ineligible hex-9s from their hex-9
commitments in their performance plans and reflect the new number of
comparable hex-9s in the comparable hex-9 commitments category in their
new, proposed performance plans. The providers must submit new
performance plans whenever they need new comparable hex-9s approved.
Where two providers cover the same hex-9s and one provider claims that
the area is inaccessible for testing, but the other provider does not,
the area would become a part of the latter provider's single-support
area, and the former provider would have to cover the same number of
hex-9s elsewhere.
All inaccessible hex-9s and updated performance plans must be
submitted to WTB before the buildout milestones are due. If providers
discover some areas are inaccessible during required speed testing or
during an audit, the provider will be in noncompliance for those hex-
9s, and potentially additional hex-9s if the inaccessible hex-9s were
selected through random sampling. If this noncompliance is discovered
for the interim milestone testing, the provider may identify, in an
updated performance plan, comparable hex-9s that it will serve. If the
provider's updated performance plan is not approved within 90 days of
the provider being notified that it is covering ineligible hex-9s
because those hex-9s cannot be tested, then the provider will have a
proportional amount of support phased down. If the provider's updated
performance plan for covering comparable hex-9s is approved after 90
days, it may have any support that was phased down restored.
Just as with determination of comparable areas before submission of
performance plans, the Commission delegates authority to WTB to work
with providers in their submissions of ``comparable number of hex-9s''
after their initial performance plans, as necessary, to meet the
requirements of this section. The Commission also delegates authority
to WTB to determine whether a provider is covering a ``comparable
area,'' and to resolve any ambiguities with respect to coverage and/or
any amount of support that should be withheld if a provider does not
cover a comparable area.
Minimum Provision of Service. In addition to the increased speed
goals the Commission adopts in this document, Alaska Connect Fund
mobile support recipients must provide service with at least the same
minimum service levels as required under the Alaska Plan and may not
provide less coverage or provide service using a less advanced
technology than the provider committed to under the Alaska Plan.
Under the Alaska Plan, mobile-provider participants were required
to provide stand-alone voice service and, at a minimum, offer to
maintain the level of data service they were providing as of the
respective dates their individual plans were adopted by WTB. They were
also required to improve service consistent with their approved
performance plans through December 31, 2026. In the Alaska Connect Fund
Notice, the Commission raised this public-interest obligation and
sought comment on what, if any, changes it should make to this and
other public interest obligations from the Alaska Plan. As a general
matter, commenters acknowledge the importance of maintaining existing
service with the Alaska Connect Fund. While some commenters argue
against a stand-alone voice requirement, others support this
requirement as a ``bedrock principle.''
In order to maintain the progress made under the Alaska Plan--and
to ensure that Alaskans in remote areas maintain the same or better
level of service--the Commission requires Alaska Connect Fund mobile-
support recipients to continue to maintain the minimum service levels--
to the same areas--that they achieved under the Alaska Plan. All Alaska
Connect Fund mobile-support recipients must continue to meet all of the
public-interest obligations of the Alaska Plan and must not reduce
service to Alaskans. This includes continuing to provide voice service,
as required of all ETCs, to maintain at least the level of data service
they are providing to their previous coverage areas as of the end of
the Alaska Plan, and to improve service consistent with their approved
performance plans through the end of Alaska Connect Fund. The
Commission delegates authority to WTB to compare BDC availability data
as of December 31, 2026 with subsequent BDC availability data to ensure
that mobile voice and mobile broadband service levels and coverage are
maintained or improve in all previously served areas.
Deployment Goals. To receive Alaska Connect Fund mobile support for
single-support areas and for duplicate-support areas under ACF Mobile
Phase I, Alaska Plan mobile-provider participants must submit
performance plans to WTB on or before September 1, 2026, for approval.
The Alaska Plan had a goal of achieving universal 4G LTE, and providers
in the most competitive areas of Alaska committed to provide 4G LTE at
10/1 Mbps by December 2026. To ensure the effective use of Alaska
Connect Fund support, the Commission expects that, where technically
and financially feasible, participants in single-support areas will
work to extend 5G service to populations who are currently served by 4G
LTE or less, and that providers in duplicate-support areas will work to
extend by the end of December 2029 at least 4G LTE at 5/1 Mbps in an
outdoor stationary environment to areas where they do not currently
offer it. For single-support areas, providers participating in the
Alaska Connect Fund are expected to use Alaska Connect Fund support to
upgrade service beyond the service commitment level they made in the
Alaska Plan, with an ultimate goal of achieving 5G NR at 35/3 Mbps in
single support areas, where technically and financially feasible, by
the end of December 2034. Regardless of the service-level commitment in
the performance plan, the Commission expects providers of single-
support areas to report on the steps they have taken towards the
commitments under their respective performance plans by December 31,
2029, meet interim commitments by December 31, 2031, and meet final
commitments by December 31, 2034.
The Commission's speed goals for single- and duplicate-support
areas align with BDC standards for the supported technologies. As
explained fully in the following, the Commission has different
performance goals for single-support areas and for duplicate-support
areas because of the potential for support changes in duplicate-support
areas, and because in duplicate-support areas there is already
competitive pressure to offer service beyond the Commission's goal for
single-support areas. The Commission recognizes that there may be some
circumstances where a provider may be unable to meet these goals. The
Commission delegates authority to WTB, in coordination with OEA, to
accept lesser commitments in some areas as warranted on a case-by-case
basis, as discussed in the following.
The Commission encourages Alaska Plan providers that opt into the
Alaska Connect Fund to begin deploying 5G-NR as soon as possible.
Technology commitments in the Alaska Plan performance plans are minimum
technology commitments, so where a provider installs 5G-NR before the
end of the Alaska Plan as it works to meet its Alaska Connect Fund
commitments,
[[Page 107215]]
5G-NR can count toward its 4G LTE commitment under its Alaska Plan
performance plan (i.e., it will receive credit for having met 4G LTE
under the Alaska Plan).
Single-Support Area Minimum Deployment Standards. Providers are
expected to commit, where technically and financially feasible, to
offer 5G-NR in order to receive support under the Alaska Connect Fund
in single-support areas. Deployment of 5G-NR in these areas is
important to ensure that Alaskans have access to the level of advanced
communications that other consumers enjoy in the United States. The
Commission also finds that such a goal is reasonable in light of the
longer-term guaranteed support in these areas through the end of 2034.
In the Alaska Connect Fund Notice, the Commission sought comment on
the level of service that should be expected from mobile providers
under the Alaska Connect Fund. In response, some commenters caution
against applying a one-size-fits-all deployment benchmark in Alaska,
and they recommend adopting standards tailored to each area that are
flexible and that consider the unique difficulties associated with
deploying in the area. At least one other commenter supports adoption
of uniform service standards. Comments from Alaska Plan participants
recognize that the next phase of high-cost support in Alaska should aim
for deployment of 5G.
The Commission agrees with commenters on the importance of using
Alaska Connect Fund support to migrate to 5G-NR, and it expects
providers to deploy 5G-NR in their single-support areas where
technically and financially feasible. The high-cost Universal Service
Fund provides support to ensure that advanced communications services
are available to all areas of the United States, and 5G-NR is currently
the universal service technology standard throughout the rest of the
United States.
The Commission finds it reasonable to expect providers in single-
support areas to offer 5G-NR where technically and financially feasible
in exchange for support through 2034. The Alaska Plan's emphasis was on
Alaska Plan participants ``work[ing] to extend 4G LTE service to
populations that are currently served by 2G or 3G.'' Six of the eight
mobile providers of the Alaska Plan will have 100% 4G LTE by December
31, 2026. Some of the 4G LTE equipment that has been deployed is
capable of 5G-NR, but even where hardware needs to be replaced, the
Commission is increasing the support amounts starting January 1, 2025
and expect providers to upgrade to 5G-NR in single-support areas where
technically and financially feasible.
Some providers have argued that middle mile is limited and that, in
some remote places where it is available, the cost per Mbps can be very
expensive, and that this limits the speeds they can offer. However,
based on information provided by current mobile support recipients in
Alaska, by 2026, even in the most remote communities, satellite
backhaul will be capable of allowing last-mile providers to offer 5/1
Mbps speeds, and satellite providers are continually adding capacity.
In addition, middle-mile infrastructure is expanding with several
Federal programs spending hundreds of millions to expand middle mile in
Alaska. Even where middle mile is available but too expensive to offer
robust service to customers, the last-mile providers receiving support
have five construction seasons from the adoption of this Order and a
30% increase in their annual support to get their communities connected
to areas with competitive transport pricing. Due to the ongoing
investment by providers using support from the Commission's universal
service program and other Federal programs, the Commission similarly
anticipates that 5G-NR at 35/3 Mbps will be achievable in these areas,
where financially and technically feasible by December 31, 2034. For
these reasons, the Commission set a goal of expanding 5G-NR at 35/3
Mbps, where technically and financially feasible in an outdoor
stationary environment by December 31, 2034 in single-support areas.
Duplicate-Support Areas. While the Commission set a goal of
achieving 5G-NR at 35/3 Mbps where technically and financially feasible
in single-support areas by December 31, 2034, it set a lower goal of at
least 4G LTE at 5/1 Mbps in duplicate-support areas for ACF Mobile
Phase I. First, based on the deployment standard in the Alaska Plan, 4G
LTE is the universal minimum by December 31, 2026, so mobile provider
participants should already have deployed--or be well on their way to
deploying--4G LTE by that date. Second, it would not be reasonable to
set an initial goal of 5G-NR in duplicate support areas because
providers in these areas may lose support in ACF Mobile Phase II, which
would start in January 2030 as discussed in the Further Notice. Third,
because of the ACF Mobile Phase II proposed competitive mechanism,
providers receiving support in these areas in ACF Mobile Phase I have a
competitive incentive to offer service well beyond the minimum in order
to position themselves better to win support in the future. For these
reasons, the Commission does not set a higher speed goal in these areas
before ACF Mobile Phase I ends in December 2029.
While providers are to work to extend by the end of December 2029
at least 4G LTE at 5/1 Mbps where technically and financially feasible
in an outdoor stationary environment to areas where they do not
currently offer it, in setting a goal of at least 4G LTE at 5/1 Mbps by
December 31, 2029, for duplicate-support areas, the Commission
acknowledges that some mobile providers in these areas are likely
capable of deploying 5G-NR service in those areas. But the Commission
set a goal of 4G LTE at 5/1 Mbps where technically and financially
feasible in order to balance the need to address duplicate support in
these areas under ACF Mobile Phase II with providers' concerns about
support certainty. The Commission is also mindful, however, of the need
to ensure that Alaskans in these areas have access to the level of
advanced communications that other consumers enjoy in the United
States. Accordingly, the Commission encourages providers in these areas
to commit to 5G-NR for ACF Mobile Phase I and to work toward 5G-NR
deployment as soon as possible. As noted in this document, providers
that deploy 5G-NR in their coverage areas before the end of the Alaska
Plan will receive credit for having met their 4G LTE commitments at the
end of the Alaska Plan (if they also met the speed requirement in their
Alaska Plan commitments) and will be better positioned for ACF Mobile
Phase II.
Technology Improvements. During the 10-year course of the Alaska
Plan, technological standards of 2G and 3G became dated and obsolete.
Similarly, during the course of the Alaska Connect Fund, the technology
goal may become dated. In the Alaska Connect Fund Notice, the
Commission sought comment on whether the Alaska Connect Fund should
have a mechanism to make a new technology generation--e.g., 6G--the
deployment goal, particularly if other high-cost programs begin
supporting that generation. While commenters did not address this
issue, the Commission finds it important to retain the ability to adapt
the Alaska Connect Fund with changing technology goals. The Commission
delegates authority to WTB to raise the technology and performance
goals, as appropriate, after opportunity for public notice and comment,
during the course of the Alaska Connect Fund.
To qualify for mobile support under the Alaska Connect Fund, the
[[Page 107216]]
Commission requires existing Alaska Plan providers to submit new
performance plans no later than September 1, 2026, based on BDC
standards and availability data as of December 31, 2024, as detailed in
the following. The new performance plans will align with BDC standards
and will require new commitments to area-based plans by census tract,
as discussed in the following, rather than the generic statewide,
population-based plans under the Alaska Plan.
Previous Performance Plans. Alaska Plan performance plans required
that the provider identify in its performance plan: (1) the types of
middle mile used on that provider's network; (2) the level of
technology (2G, 3G, 4G LTE, etc.) the provider uses to offer service at
each type of middle mile; (3) the delineated eligible populations
served, at the state level, at each technology level by each type of
middle mile as they stand currently and at years five 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 stand currently
and at years five and 10 of the support term. These plans were
evaluated by superimposing FCC Form 477 coverage over 2010 census
blocks with population distributed based on Alaska Population-
Distribution Model. Because the FCC Form 477 rules allowed mobile
providers to file coverage areas based on various technologies and
various minimum speeds, based on the provider's own propagation model,
Alaska Plan providers could submit coverage areas in FCC Form 477 that
were consistent with the Alaska Plan requirements (e.g., 4G LTE at 1
Mbps/256 kbps; 4G LTE at 25/10 Mbps).
Alaska Connect Fund Performance Plans. The Commission requires
Alaska Connect Fund performance plans for mobile support to be based on
BDC data standards. The Broadband DATA Act requires that the Commission
rely on the National Broadband Map ``when making any new award of
funding with respect to the deployment of broadband internet access
service intended for use by residential and mobile customers.'' The
increase in support starting next year does not constitute a new award
of funding because it is part of the existing Alaska Plan that provides
mobile support through December 31, 2026. However, after that, mobile
support for the Alaska Connect Fund begins with new obligations that
lead to an expansion or upgrade of mobile broadband coverage. The
Commission finds that Alaska Connect Fund mobile support, which begins
after December 31, 2026, requires that it relies on the National
Broadband Map data and the associated BDC data standards in awarding
funding for mobile support under the Alaska Connect Fund. Accordingly,
the Commission requires initial Alaska Connect Fund performance plans
to rely on the BDC coverage data and BDC data standards on which the
National Broadband map is based and on mobile providers' availability
data in Alaska as of December 31, 2024.
In the Alaska Connect Fund Notice, the Commission acknowledged that
the mobile data coverage filings under the BDC have changed
substantially from the Commission's previous mobile coverage data
requirements. It noted that data for the National Broadband Map are
filed pursuant to standardized parameters or standards that mobile
broadband providers are subject to in the creation of their coverage
data (e.g., specific speeds based on technology, cell edge probability
of not less than 90% and cell loading factor of least 50%) and sought
comment on the best ways to use the National Broadband Map. Commenters
generally support the Commission's use of the National Broadband Map
for mobile coverage data, but some noted that the map does not account
for cases where a provider has claimed coverage by partly roaming or
leasing facilities from another provider. The Commission's National
Broadband Map, however, is based on areas where facilities-based
providers offer service. No one commented on the use of the BDC
technical coverage standards for Alaska Connect Fund performance plans.
The Commission finds that basing the Alaska Connect Fund
performance plans on BDC standards will result in reduced burdens on
providers, given that providers are already required to submit their
coverage data to the Commission under the Broadband DATA Act. Although
the Commission has retired FCC Form 477 reporting requirements for
broadband deployment, under the Alaska Plan, mobile provider
participants must continue to produce and submit annual deployment
data, using the outdated FCC Form 477 requirements, to allow for like
comparisons to the previous deployment data on which these providers
based their performance commitments. By contrast, under the Alaska
Connect Fund, mobile participants will no longer have to produce and
submit additional coverage maps because the Commission will use their
BDC coverage maps to assess compliance.
Unlike FCC Form 477, the BDC requires mobile providers to use
standardized parameters in their propagation modeling and data
submissions. For example, for 4G LTE, the BDC requires mobile broadband
service providers to submit availability data that represent coverage
where mobile wireless users should expect to receive minimum user
speeds of 5/1 Mbps at the cell edge, with a cell edge coverage
probability of not less than 90% and a cell loading of not less than
50%. All mobile broadband providers must submit biannual BDC filings
that depict technology and minimum speeds at 35/3 Mbps 5G-NR, 7/1 Mbps
5G-NR, 5/1 Mbps 4G LTE, and 200/50 kbps 3G at the cell edge.
Consistent with the BDC requirements, mobile providers who intend
to participate in the Alaska Connect Fund must submit new performance
plans at the census-tract level, which must: (1) include the name of
the census tract that the provider commits to serve; (2) include the
minimum technology level and speed in an outdoor stationary environment
that the provider commits to provide; (3) specify the number of hex-9s
committed to be covered within each census tract at the committed-to
technology and speed levels, which shall be no less than the provider's
coverage in the Alaska Plan, minus any ineligible areas; and (4)
specify how many additional hex-9s committed to within each census
tract at the committed-to technology and speed levels are comparable
hex-9s. Providers are to reflect the additional coverage that is
required to retain support due to areas being deemed ineligible solely
in the comparable hex-9 category of their performance plans. Initial
performance plans must be submitted for WTB approval on or before
September 1, 2026. Separate performance plans are required for single-
support areas and for duplicate-support areas. For single-support
areas, performance plan interim commitments are due December 31, 2031,
and performance plan final commitments are due December 31, 2034. While
outside of the performance plan, the Commission also expects providers
of single-support areas to report on the steps they have taken towards
the commitments under their respective performance plans by December
31, 2029. For duplicate-support areas, performance plan commitments are
due December 31, 2029. WTB will release a Public Notice providing
guidance on what to include in the performance plans and their format.
The Commission delegates authority to WTB to adopt requirements and
develop data specifications, after appropriate public process,
concerning
[[Page 107217]]
the format and method of uploading Alaska Connect Fund Performance
Plans. The Commission also delegates authority to WTB to require
additional information, including during WTB's review of any proposed
performance plans, from individual Alaska Connect Fund mobile-provider
recipients that it deems necessary for determining whether or not they
have met their commitments. If ACF Mobile Phase I is extended in
duplicate-support areas to December 31, 2034, WTB may require, after
seeking notice and comment, the filing of additional commitments in
those areas as a final milestone. In addition, WTB may require the
filing of revised commitments when justified by developments that occur
after the approval of the initial Alaska Connect Fund performance
commitments.
Hex-9s per Census Tract. Each Alaska Connect Fund mobile-provider
participant must specify each census tract that it will serve and
indicate the minimum number of hex-9s that it will serve within each
census tract. In the Alaska Plan, providers committed to cover a
specified number of Alaskans on a statewide basis. This resulted in
some communities being deprioritized, as some providers put their
resources in the most desirable remote locations in the state, with
some mobile coverage concentrated on the populated areas. In the Alaska
Connect Fund, the Commission requires commitments to be more granular
than statewide commitments to better ensure that communities do not get
left behind. For the Alaska Connect Fund, performance plans must
specify the number of hex-9s providers commit to cover in each census
tract. Similar to the Commission's requirement in the Alaska Plan,
providers participating in the mobile portion of the Alaska Connect
Fund, at a minimum, must maintain the coverage that they had been
offering throughout the course of the Alaska Plan based on BDC coverage
data as of December 31, 2026.
Because a provider must maintain its coverage with at least the
same level of service in the areas it covered under the Alaska Plan, a
provider must commit to cover any eligible hex-9 in its support area
and may commit to cover any eligible hex-9 not covered by other mobile
providers. The Commission allows a provider the leeway to best employ
its knowledge of its areas to ensure that coverage occurs where it will
be of most benefit to Alaskans and does not impose further conditions
on which hex-9s must be covered. In other words, providers are free to
provide mobile service wherever they deem necessary in eligible areas
to ensure that people have coverage where they live, work, and travel
within each census tract.
The Commission finds that using hex-9 areas is the best way to
identify areas that mobile-provider participants of the Alaska Connect
Fund had previously covered under their Alaska Plan commitments, while
giving providers the flexibility to provide mobile coverage where
people live, work, and travel under the Alaska Connect Fund. The hex-9
approach also best addresses concerns raised in the record about how to
develop performance plans for Alaska Connect Fund support.
Some commenters expressed concern with an area-based approach and
wanted to ensure that any new plan maintained population-based metrics,
similar to the Alaska Plan. Specifically, ATA argues that the Alaska
Connect Fund should retain a population-based approach with population-
based metrics. GCI has advocated for covering residential BSLs for
mobile-support purposes. GCI argues that, while BSLs in the Fabric are
insufficiently accurate for wireline support, use of BSLs in the Fabric
is more accurate than reliance on the Alaska Population Distribution
Model and should be incorporated into the Model to ``potentially better
target providers' service obligation to where Alaska's remote
populations most need the service.'' The Alaska Population Distribution
Model, which WTB developed for purposes of the mobile portion of the
Alaska Plan, indicated where people were likely to live, but this was a
model and it did not identify actual resident locations. The Commission
finds that the population-based approach in the Alaska Plan can be too
limiting to effectively meet the program's mandate to ensure mobile
network coverage is available where Alaskans live, work, and travel.
Though the Commission now has the Fabric, which provides information on
where people live and work, people frequently travel in and visit areas
where there are no Fabric locations, such as along roads, snow mobile
routes, hunting areas, bodies of water, or hiking trails. Therefore,
the Commission does not limit support to merely targeting where
populations live. A concentration of BSLs is necessarily evidence that
an area is valuable to its users, but the absence of BSLs does not
always indicate that an area does not need to be covered by mobile
networks, and the Commission will rely on input from all sources,
including the providers receiving support, regarding whether Alaska
Connect Fund support should be used to cover an area or not. Local
mobile providers cover well beyond the areas where people live,
including roads, water bodies, and open areas that may be used for snow
mobiles or hunting. The Commission's hex-9 area-based approach can give
mobile provider participants the flexibility to continue doing so.
This approach differs from the approach adopted in the 5G Fund,
given the distinctions between these two funds. In the 5G Fund Second
Report and Order, the Commission required that a hex-9 show locations
or roads in order to be eligible. The Commission does not impose this
same requirement in the Alaska Connect Fund, because under the mobile
portion of the Alaska Connect Fund for single-support areas and
duplicate-support areas under ACF Mobile Phase I, providers will
continue to receive support for the areas they have already covered
under the Alaska Plan, which was not based on locations in the first
instance. In other words, for the Alaska Connect Fund, the Commission
does not want to make a previously supported area ineligible simply
because of the absence of a location or road--that would be
inconsistent with its approach of extending support for the areas that
mobile-provider participants covered under the Alaska Plan (subject to
the ineligibility criteria discussed in this document). By contrast, it
is reasonable for the 5G Fund to require hex-9s to have locations or
roads because it is a reverse auction that will distribute new support
to areas unserved by unsubsidized 5G service. In creating a different
requirement for Alaska Connect Fund than the 5G Fund, the Commission
also noted that Alaska is unique from the rest of the United States, in
that areas that Alaskans live, work, and travel are not as clearly
determined by locations or roads. First, many areas in Alaska are
accessible only by plane rather than roads, and second, covering
certain bodies of water is important to meet the ``work and travel''
aspect of the Commission's universal service goals for Alaskans. In
addition, in the context of developing a sampling methodology for speed
testing for the Alaska Plan, road data was found to be unreliable in
certain areas. The Commission will not constrain Alaska Connect Fund
recipients to area eligibility rules that were not developed with
Alaska and the Alaska Plan in mind. This approach will allow providers,
who have local knowledge about the communities they serve, to continue
to invest in network improvements via their performance plans where
they know they are needed most. While the Commission does not
[[Page 107218]]
require hex-9s to include BSLs or roads, it strongly encourages
providers to consider that data in determining their coverage,
particularly to the extent they cover areas beyond those that they
covered in the Alaska Plan.
Middle-Mile Disaggregation. Alaska Plan providers were required to
disaggregate their commitments by available middle mile in their
performance plans. The Commission declines to adopt a middle-mile
disaggregation requirement for Alaska Connect Fund performance plans.
Accordingly, Alaska Connect Fund mobile support recipients will not
need to include information about which middle mile applies to which
coverage in their performance plans. While the initial Alaska Plan
requirement for middle-mile disaggregation was necessary due to a
dearth of information regarding the microwave and fiber infrastructure
in Alaska in 2016, since then, the Commission has been receiving
microwave and fiber infrastructure information from providers.
Moreover, mobile providers must indicate on their Alaska Connect Fund
performance plans on a census-tract-by-census-tract basis, where they
believe transport is inadequate. The Commission no longer believes that
technology conditions need to be broken out by the middle-mile
infrastructure available to better understand the limitation of any
speed commitments in the manner they were in the Alaska Plan
performance plans--and it will continue to have access to necessary
middle-mile information through the middle-mile maps that providers
submit as part of their obligations under the Alaska Connect Fund.
Consistent with the approach in the Alaska Plan, Alaska Connect
Fund mobile-support recipients will be permitted to use their support
for both operating expenses and capital expenses for deploying,
upgrading, and maintaining mobile voice and broadband-capable networks,
including middle-mile improvements needed to meet those ends. As long
as an Alaska Connect Fund recipient is providing service to its awarded
area consistent with the public interest obligations delineated in this
Order, service expenditures in that area will be eligible for support.
Expenditures for middle-mile facilities may occur outside of eligible
areas, so long as they are necessary to provide mobile voice and
broadband service in the areas where the Alaska Connect Fund recipient
receives support.
In the Alaska Connect Fund Notice, the Commission pointed to its
rule setting forth the appropriate use of support under the Alaska Plan
and sought comment generally on whether to follow the same approach,
particularly in the context of how to use--and allocate--support for
middle mile (e.g., whether to allow use of Alaska Connect Fund support
for middle-mile improvements like in the Alaska Plan, or to set aside
specific funds for middle mile). While some commenters asked us to set
aside specific funds for middle mile, no commenters asked us to
reallocate existing Alaska Plan support already going to mobile
provider participants for middle mile only. In fact, ATA specifically
made clear that any allocation of funds to middle mile should ``provide
additional support, over and above current support amounts.'' No
commenters asked us to change the requirements for appropriate use of
support for the Alaska Connect Fund, and in fact, ATA and other
commenters in general asked the Commission to embrace the ``basic
structure'' of the Alaska Plan with only minor changes. The Commission
finds that adopting requirements for appropriate use of support that
mirror those from the Alaska Plan will help ensure that mobile provider
participants have the flexibility they need to best serve remote
Alaskans with high-cost support.
Reasonably Comparable Services and Rates. Section 254(b)(3)
provides the universal service principle that consumers in all regions
of the nation, including ``rural, insular, and high-cost areas,''
should have access to advanced communications that are reasonably
comparable to those services and rates available in urban areas.
Similar to the requirement under the Alaska Plan, under the Alaska
Connect Fund, the Commission requires participating mobile providers to
certify their compliance with this obligation in their annual
compliance filings and to demonstrate compliance with this obligation
on December 31, 2029 for duplicate-support areas, and on December 31,
2029, December 31, 2031, and December 31, 2034 for single-support
areas.
In the Alaska Connect Fund Notice, the Commission sought comment on
the best means for advancing the statutory requirement that rural areas
have services and rates that are ``reasonably comparable'' to those
available in urban areas, including how support recipients should
demonstrate their compliance with this requirement. In its comments,
NTCA recognizes the importance in ensuring that Alaska consumers living
in rural areas ``can realize the benefits of `reasonably comparable'
services at `reasonably comparable' rates to those available in urban
areas.'' ARIC says that ``[d]eveloping a program that deploys the same
broadband and mobile wireless speeds and pricing urban residents in
Anchorage and other major cities in America are receiving is
critical.'' Alaska Power & Telephone (APT) urges the Commission to be
flexible in the timing required to provide reasonably comparable
service and rates due to the many challenges to providing service in
Alaska. AMMA says the Commission should consider ``reasonably
comparable rates within the ACF that are sensible considering the
middle-mile technology available to a very remote community or
location.'' As ATA notes in its comments, it is important for the
Commission to take stock on what has already worked in the Alaska Plan,
including the obligation that providers offer reasonably comparable
rates.
To ensure that providers are adequately notifying the public of
their reasonably comparable plans, the Commission requires that a
provider demonstrate compliance by showing that it publishes, on its
publicly accessible website, at least one mobile broadband plan and at
least one stand-alone voice plan that are: (1) substantially similar to
a service plan offered by at least one different mobile wireless
service provider in the Cellular Market Area (CMA) for Anchorage,
Alaska, and (2) offered for the same or a lower rate than the matching
plan in the CMA for Anchorage. This demonstration must include usage
allowances for the comparable plans in Anchorage. Because of the unique
conditions in remote Alaska, however, and the variety of circumstances
and costs of the affected carriers, the Commission authorizes WTB to
employ alternative benchmarks or dates appropriate for specific
competitive ETCs in assessing carrier offerings. Participants in the
Alaska Connect Fund may not cite their own plans in Anchorage as
evidence of meeting the reasonably comparable rate condition.
Additional Obligations for Performance Plans with Less than the
Minimum Deployment Goals. In the Alaska Plan Order, mobile-provider
participants had additional reporting obligations when their
performance plans indicated that they had backhaul limitations,
especially where it affected their performance commitments. An FCC Form
481 reporting requirement was added to the Alaska Plan for mobile-
provider participants that identified in their adopted performance
plans that they relied exclusively on performance-limiting satellite
backhaul
[[Page 107219]]
for a certain portion of the population in their service area. These
providers were required to certify whether any terrestrial backhaul, or
any new-generation satellite backhaul service providing middle-mile
service with technical characteristics comparable to at least microwave
backhaul, became commercially available in the previous calendar year
in areas that were previously served exclusively by performance-
limiting satellite backhaul. If a mobile-provider participant certified
that such new backhaul has become available, it had to provide a
description of the backhaul technology, the date on which that backhaul
was made commercially available to the carrier, and the number of the
population served by the new backhaul option. Further, the Commission
required those Alaska Plan providers that had not already committed to
providing 4G LTE at 10/1 Mbps speeds to the population served by the
newly available backhaul by the end of the plan term to submit revised
performance commitments factoring in the availability of the new
backhaul option no later than the due date of the FCC Form 481 in which
they have certified that such backhaul became commercially available.
In the Alaska Connect Fund Notice, the Commission asked whether
providers should be permitted to offer lesser commitments if they are
constrained by middle mile, and if so, what information should be
required to demonstrate that an area is middle-mile constrained. The
Commission sought comment on whether it should impose requirements
similar to the additional requirements imposed in the Alaska Plan Order
for providers that commit to less than 10/1 Mbps 4G LTE (e.g.,
submitting an updated performance plan when new middle mile becomes
available). The Commission also sought 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 and on whether it could conclude that middle mile is not
commercially available if the Alaska Connect Fund participant must pay
a particular price per Mbps. The Commission asked whether providers
that are providing fixed services at speeds above their mobile-service
commitments should be deemed to have sufficient middle mile available
to it. Only AMMA, which represents two satellite providers, addresses
these questions directly. AMMA supports requiring updated performance
plans when new middle-mile services enter the market. AMMA further
argues that ``the Commission should not consider a new middle-mile
service to be `not commercially available' if the ACF participant must
pay a `particular price per Mbps''' and argues that ``if the wireline
affiliate is meeting its commitments in an area the mobile provider
should be able to do the same.''
Given Alaska's unique geography and climate, the Commission finds
that the public interest would be served by permitting Alaska Connect
Fund applicants, under certain circumstances, to request in their
proposed performance plan submissions approval of lesser commitments
than the minimum deployment and progress goals specified herein for the
Alaska Connect Fund. Specifically, the Commission delegates authority
to WTB to approve requests on a case-by-case basis where the requestor
cannot meet the minimum deployment and progress goals at the Alaska
Connect Fund support levels. Through this process, WTB can negotiate
individualized performance plans with each provider. The Commission
requires that the provider specify the deployment commitment it can
meet and explicitly state the reason it cannot commit to the minimum
deployment or progress goal as a notation under the proposed
performance plan for each census tract. Providers may submit
supplementary information to aid in this process. As part of these
negotiations, WTB can consider all relevant and practical
circumstances, among other considerations, including middle-mile
mapping data and wireline affiliate commitments in the relevant area to
help assess a provider's proposed commitment in single-support areas at
the Alaska Connect Fund support levels. Where a hex-9 is more than 50
miles from a microwave or fiber node, this factor alone weighs heavily
in favor of allowing a lesser commitment. Given the obsolete
technological standards with 3G or less and the goal of the Alaska Plan
to achieve universal 4G LTE at 10/1 Mbps, WTB is to have a strong
presumption against approving commitments less than 4G LTE at speeds of
at least 5/1 Mbps in an outdoor stationary environment for any
milestone.
Where WTB approves lesser commitments in a provider's performance
plan, the Commission requires additional reporting obligations for FCC
Form 481. The Commission requires the mobile provider to certify, by
census tract, that the basis for which it qualified for lesser
commitments still applies in the previous calendar year and to describe
on its FCC Form 481 the efforts it has taken to improve conditions that
served as the basis for the lesser commitments. When the basis for the
lesser commitments has changed in the previous calendar year, allowing
the minimum commitments to be achieved in the census tract, the mobile
provider must certify to this in FCC Form 481.
Where a provider certifies on FCC Form 481 that conditions have
changed such that it no longer qualifies for lesser commitments in a
census tract, the provider must submit additional information and
updated performance plans into the Alaska Connect Fund docket. Where
conditions have changed, the mobile provider must submit, for the
affected census tracts: (i) a description of the change; (ii) the date
on which the change occurred; (iii) the hex-9s within the census tract
that could be served as a result of the changed conditions; and (iv)
revised performance commitments factoring in the change. These filings
must be made simultaneously with the submission of the FCC Form 481.
The mobile provider may seek confidential treatment of information
required in this section if the conditions for confidentiality are met.
Compliance and recordkeeping. Consistent with the Commission's
long-standing approach for the high-cost program, it will hold Alaska
Connect Fund mobile support recipients accountable for meeting their
obligations under the program. The high-cost program has various rules
to protect the success and integrity of high-cost support. Alaska
Connect Fund mobile support recipients shall be subject to the
compliance measures, recordkeeping requirements, and audit requirements
set forth in Sec. 54.320. If specific performance obligations are not
achieved in the time period identified in the approved performance
plans the provider shall be subject to the penalties set forth in
Sec. Sec. 54.320(c) and (d).
In the Alaska Plan Order, providers faced a reduction in support if
they did not meet their milestone obligations or other public interest
obligations. Alaska Plan mobile-provider participants had interim
performance plan milestones due on December 31, 2021, and have final
performance plan milestones due on December 31, 2026. To evaluate
whether the provider was meeting its performance milestones, the
Commission took the provider's FCC Form 477 or special collection
coverage data and intersected it with Alaska Population Distribution
Model data. The amount of support that is withheld is based on the
percentage of compliance gap that the provider has with its performance
commitments. Alaska Plan
[[Page 107220]]
mobile-provider participants that do not meet other public interest
obligations or any other terms and conditions may be subject to further
action, including the Commission's existing enforcement procedures and
penalties, reductions in support amounts, potential revocation of ETC
designation, and suspension or debarment pursuant to Sec. 54.8 of the
Commission's rules.
The Commission has generally adopted build-out milestones for the
Alaska Connect Fund mobile competitive ETCs that will be more
specifically defined based on each participant's approved performance
plan, with interim milestone obligations that must be met by December
31, 2031, and final milestone obligations that must be met by December
31, 2034, for single-support areas and with final milestone obligations
that must be met by December 31, 2029, for duplicate-support areas
under ACF Mobile Phase I, unless otherwise modified by WTB. Once a
carrier's performance plan is approved by the WTB, the carrier is
required to meet the performance benchmarks of the plan. No commenters
suggest eliminating the reduction of support framework, and in fact,
some commenters suggest that the FCC should adopt even stricter
measures to address failure to meet commitments. The Commission agrees
with these commenters that accountability and oversight are important
elements of ensuring that the Alaska Connect Fund is successful and
that providers are appropriately penalized in instances of
noncompliance with their obligations. Accordingly, consistent with the
Alaska Plan and the Commission's other high-cost programs, Alaska
Connect Fund recipients of support that fail to meet these milestones
will be subject to the same potential reductions in support as any
other carrier subject to defined obligations.
In addition, as the mobile portion of the Alaska Connect Fund,
provided after December 31, 2026, is a new award of funding for
deployment, the Commission ensures that its accountability measures are
also consistent with the BDC data. The Commission delegates authority
to WTB to create any systems for data specifications and collections
they deem necessary for Alaska Connect Fund administration to determine
whether providers have met their commitments.
Annual BDC Infrastructure Submission. The Commission requires
Alaska Connect Fund recipients of mobile support to annually submit
infrastructure data to verify their coverage in areas for which they
receive support. In the Alaska Connect Fund Notice, the Commission
sought comment on whether it should require submission of
infrastructure data similar to the BDC mobile verification process to
substantiate coverage and demonstrate compliance with ACF commitments.
While commenters did not respond to that specific request for comment,
several commenters support Commission efforts to require recipients to
demonstrate they have met their performance requirements and agree that
oversight will be important for a future Alaska Connect Fund.
Based on FCC staff's experience in implementing the mobile BDC
processes, the Commission finds that the collection of infrastructure
data is an important tool that it can use to ensure compliance with the
Alaska Connect Fund requirements. Accordingly, the Commission requires
Alaska Connect Fund recipients of mobile support to submit, on an
annual basis, all of the infrastructure data that providers would
submit as part of the BDC mobile verification process, for all
infrastructure used to serve an Alaska Connect Fund mobile support
recipient's supported area for coverage as of December 31 of each year,
due by March 1 of the following year. These Alaska Connect Fund
recipients of mobile support must submit these data to WTB by the
following March 1 based on their instructions. Similar to BDC mobile
verifications, staff can use the infrastructure data to estimate a
``core coverage area,'' in which coverage at the modeled throughput is
highly likely to exist at or above the minimum values reported in the
provider's submitted coverage data. This ``core coverage area'' may be
considered to meet the mobile support recipient's Alaska Connect Fund
build-out obligations. For any areas that are outside of the ``core
coverage area'' but within the required coverage area, WTB will
consider additional information submitted by the Alaska Connect Fund
mobile support recipient, such as on-the-ground or UA speed test data,
and may request such information from the recipient.
To facilitate the process of Commission staff review of an Alaska
Connect Fund mobile support recipient's data, it delegates authority to
WTB to notify the support recipient of any additional requests for
information. For the purposes of accountability of high-cost funds, the
Commission requires an annual mobile infrastructure submission. As the
initial map can be used and built upon for subsequent submissions,
requesting this initial submission early into the plan is appropriate.
Moreover, the construction of this data set can be used for other BDC
verification requests, allowing for an additional benefit to the
provider if required early in this process.
Speed Tests. The Commission requires certifications that the
provider has met its milestone commitments to be accompanied by speed
tests for those mobile provider recipients receiving more than $5
million annually. In the Alaska Plan Order, certain providers of mobile
support were required to conduct drive tests to accompany their
certifications that they have met their milestone obligations.
Specifically, for Alaska Plan participants receiving more than $5
million annually in support, the Commission required that the
certification that the provider met its obligations was to be
accompanied by data received or used from drive tests analyzing network
coverage for mobile service covering the population for which support
was received and showing mobile transmissions to and from the carrier's
network meeting or exceeding the minimum expected download and upload
speeds delineated in the approved performance plan. These tests allowed
providers to demonstrate coverage of an area with a statistically
significant number of tests. As part of this process, WTB and OEA
published a speed test methodology to ensure that any speed tests
amounted to statistically significant sampling of the provider's
coverage and service obligations.
In the context of the BDC, the Commission adopted procedures
whereby providers may submit on-the-ground test data as part of the BDC
verification process. When submitting on-the-ground test data, a
provider is required to submit evidence of network performance based on
a sample of on-the-ground tests that is statistically appropriate for
the area tested for a sampled area using the H3 geospatial indexing
system at resolution 8 (hex-8). The sampled area is provided to the
provider for testing within the provider's coverage area, and hexagons
that are not accessible by roads are excluded from all strata within
each stratum for the service providers must conduct on-the-ground
testing.
In the Alaska Connect Fund Notice, the Commission sought comment on
whether it should require on-the-ground test data for supported areas
based on a sample that is statistically appropriate. The Commission
noted that, under the BDC mobile verification process, if a provider
chooses to submit on-the-ground test data in response to a verification
request, ``it must provide such data based on a sample of on-the-ground
tests that is statistically appropriate for the area tested,'' and
[[Page 107221]]
that, ``[i]n 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 Commission asked
whether it should apply this mobile verification process to the Alaska
Connect Fund. Commenters express support for requiring speed testing to
help verify that providers have met their requirements under the Alaska
Connect Fund. The Alaska Public Interest Research Group and Native
Movement supports a requirement for USAC to conduct speed testing and
argues that providers receiving more than $5 million annually should
cover the costs of USAC-administered testing.
After considering the record and the Commission's previous
experience administering the Alaska Plan, the Commission finds that it
will serve the public interest to require Alaska Connect Fund mobile
providers receiving more than $5 million per year to submit speed test
data generally conforming to the BDC Data Specifications for Mobile
Speed Test Data when they submit their milestone certifications. While
the Commission will require annual submission of infrastructure data
for all mobile providers receiving support under the Alaska Connect
Fund, it finds that it is important to require additional speed test
results for those mobile providers receiving the most from the program.
The combination of infrastructure data and speed test data that these
providers will submit will allow for the theoretical engineering model
to be verified with empirical data, improving the reliability of both
as a means of understanding the realities on the ground.
While the Commission generally relies on BDC Data Specifications
for Mobile Speed Test Data requirements, it expands the ``accessible''
hexes that are included in sampling for purposes of the Alaska Connect
Fund. Generally, in the BDC, hexagons that are not accessible by roads
are excluded from all strata (and therefore all samples) in which the
service providers must conduct on-the-ground testing. This BDC sampling
decision was made as part of a nationwide data collection requirement
and was intended to ease the burden on mobile providers that might
otherwise be required to conduct large scale on-the-ground testing.
Coverage near roads is easier to test for all providers subjected to
mobile speed test verification nationwide. However, for the Alaska
Connect Fund, the Commission is subsidizing the provider's coverage in
all eligible areas where consumers live, work, and travel that the
provider commits to cover for that support: this requires an expansion
of the hexes required for the sampling to ensure funds are being used
as committed to and justifies a more burdensome testing requirement for
the mobile providers receiving those funds. For the Alaska Connect
Fund, if the hexagon is testable by at least a UAS, then it will be
considered accessible and will be included in the hexagons that are
eligible to be sampled for Alaska Connect Fund mobile speed testing.
Moreover, roads are scarce in Alaska and road data have proven
unreliable in certain areas for the purposes of speed test sampling for
high-cost support purposes in Alaska; expanding the accessible areas in
this way allows us to avoid reliance on potentially inaccurate road
data in Alaska.
WTB, in coordination with OEA, is directed to provide the mobile
support recipients with a sample to test within four months after their
milestones are due that tests network coverage for mobile service
coverage for which support was received and showing mobile
transmissions to and from the provider's network meeting or exceeding
the minimum expected download and upload speeds in the approved
performance plan. Since the sample may potentially include some hexes
that may only be feasible and safely testable by UAS, the Commission
delegates to WTB, in coordination with OEA, to consider under what
circumstances alternatives to on-the-ground speed testing data are
appropriate to validate coverage in such areas, including use of UASs
and to make any other accommodations to the testing necessary to
determine whether the providers have met their commitments or not.
There may be circumstances where other methods are equally safe to
using a UAS but may better reflect the on-the-ground user experience,
in which case, WTB, in coordination with OEA, may restrict the use of
UASs in some hex-9s for speed testing purposes, even when UAS usage is
otherwise permissible.
The Commission rejects the suggestion that USAC should conduct all
on-the-ground speed tests and that those receiving more than $5 million
annually should reimburse USAC. Administration costs of USAC are built
into USAC's contract to administer the program, and allowing the
audited to pay the auditor invites perniciousness and has an appearance
of impropriety. However, providers that submit on-the-ground speed
tests may also be subject to drive tests by USAC.
If a hex-9 is determined to be untestable and, thus, ineligible and
this is discovered during speed testing of a provider's commitments,
the hex-9 will be counted as noncompliant with the provider's
commitments. It should be noted that as a result of a random sampling
methodology, such a hex-9 will likely represent other, unselected, hex-
9s. The provider's support may be reduced accordingly, consistent with
Sec. 54.320(d).
Reporting and Certifications. As many commenters have noted in the
record, it is important that the Commission provide accountability and
oversight to ensure USF funds are being used for the purposes intended.
Pursuant to Sec. 54.313 of the Commission's rules, Alaska Connect Fund
mobile support participants must continue to file their FCC Form 481 on
July 1 each year. Alaska Connect Fund mobile support recipients will
also be subject to Sec. 54.314 of the Commission's rules, which
requires that support be used only for the provision, maintenance and
upgrading of facilities and services. To provide accountability for
Alaska Connect Fund mobile provider recipients, the Commission requires
that no later than 60 days after the end of each participating mobile
provider's commitment (milestone) deadline, it must submit a
certification that it has met the obligations contained in the
performance plan approved by WTB, including any obligations pursuant to
a revised approved performance plan, and that it has met the requisite
public interest obligations contained in the Alaska Connect Fund Order.
Further, Alaska Connect Fund mobile support recipients, like all USF
recipients, will be subject to requirements and certifications in
Sec. Sec. 54.9, 54.10, and 54.11.
Middle-Mile Mapping. The Alaska Plan requires participants to
submit fiber network maps or microwave network maps in a format
specified by WCB and WTB covering eligible areas and to update such
maps if they have deployed middle-mile facilities in the prior calendar
year that are or will be used to support their service in eligible
areas. These maps were limited to fiber and microwave links and nodes.
Providers are required to submit the locations of the links they own
and provide conceptual links for their leased links. The Alaska Plan
participant provides the amount of capacity available per link.
The Commission adopts an expanded version of the middle-mile
requirement for Al
[…truncated; see source link]Indexed from Federal Register on December 31, 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.