Connect America Fund, Alaska Connect Fund, ETC Annual Reports and Certifications, Telecommunications Carriers Eligible To Receive Universal Service Support, Universal Service Reform-Mobility Fund, 80238-80256 [2023-25375]

Agencies

• FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 221 (Friday, November 17, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 80238-80256]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-25375]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 54

[WC Docket Nos. 10-90, 23-328, 14-58, 09-197; WT Docket No. 10-208; FCC 
23-87; FR ID 184414]


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

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC 
or Commission) adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that 
seeks comment on the next phase of high-cost fixed and mobile support 
in Alaska. The Commission initiates this rulemaking to seek comment on 
innovative solutions and unique accommodations necessary to continue 
supporting broadband service to Alaska.

DATES: Comments are due on or before January 16, 2024, and reply 
comments are due on or before February 15, 2024.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by WC Docket Nos. 10-90, 
23-328, 14-58, 09-197 or WT Docket No. 10-208 by any of the following 
methods:
     Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically 
using the internet by accessing the ECFS: www.fcc.gov/ecfs.
     Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must 
file an original and one copy of each filing.
    Filings can be sent by commercial overnight courier, or by first-
class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be 
addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, 
Federal Communications Commission.
     Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service 
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, 
Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.
     U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority 
mail must be addressed to 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.
     Effective March 19, 2020, and until further notice, the 
Commission no longer accepts any hand or messenger delivered filings. 
This is a temporary measure taken to help protect the health and safety 
of individuals, and to mitigate the transmission of COVID-19. See FCC 
Announces Closure of FCC Headquarters Open Window and Change in Hand-
Delivery Policy, Public Notice, 35 FCC Rcd 2788, 2788-89 (OS 2020).
    People with Disabilities. To request materials in accessible 
formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic 
files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the 
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-
418-0432 (tty).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, please 
contact, Rebekah Douglas, Telecommunications Access Policy Division, 
Wireline Competition Bureau, at [email protected] or (202) 418-
7931 or Matt Warner, Competition and Infrastructure Policy Division, 
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, at [email protected] or (202) 
418-2419.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's NPRM 
in WC Docket Nos. 10-90, 23-328, 14-58, 09-197 and WT Docket No. 10-
208; FCC 23-87, adopted on October 19, 2023 and released on October 20, 
2023. The full text of this document is available at the following 
internet address: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-23-87A1.pdf.
    Availability of Documents. Comments, reply comments, and ex parte 
submissions will be available for public inspection during regular 
business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Federal Communications 
Commission, 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554. These documents will 
also be available via ECFS. Documents will be available electronically 
in ASCII, Microsoft Word, and/or Adobe Acrobat.
    Filing Requirements. Comments and reply comments exceeding ten 
pages must include a short and concise summary of the substantive 
arguments raised in the pleading. Comments and reply comments must also 
comply with Sec.  1.49 and all other applicable sections of the 
Commission's rules. The Commission directs all interested parties to 
include the name of the filing party and the date of the filing on each 
page of their comments and reply comments. All parties are encouraged 
to utilize a table of contents, regardless of the length of their 
submission. The Commission also strongly encourages parties to follow 
the same order and organization set forth in the NPRM in order to 
facilitate the Commission's internal review process.
    Ex Parte Rules--Permit-But-Disclose. These proceedings shall be 
treated as a ``permit-but-disclose'' proceeding in accordance with the 
Commission's ex parte rules. Persons making ex parte presentations must 
file a copy of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any 
oral presentation within two business days after the presentation 
(unless a different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period 
applies).
    In light of the Commission's trust relationship with Tribal Nations 
and its commitment to engage in government-to-government consultation 
with them, it finds the public interest requires a limited modification 
of the ex parte rules in these proceedings. Tribal Nations, like other 
interested parties, should file comments, reply comments, and ex parte 
presentations in the record to put facts and arguments before the 
Commission in a manner such that they may be relied upon in the 
decision-making process consistent with the requirements of the 
Administrative Procedure Act. However, at the option of the Tribe, ex 
parte presentations made during consultations by elected and appointed 
leaders and duly appointed representatives of federally recognized 
Indian Tribes and Alaska Native Villages to Commission decision makers 
shall be exempt from disclosure in permit-but-disclose proceedings and 
exempt from the prohibitions during the Sunshine Agenda period. To be 
clear, while the Commission recognizes consultation is critically 
important, it emphasizes that it will rely in its decision-making only 
on those presentations that are placed in the public record for these 
proceedings.

[[Page 80239]]

    Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that 
memoranda summarizing the presentation must (1) list all persons 
attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex 
parte presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and 
arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted 
in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already 
reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda, or other 
filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such 
data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other 
filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where 
such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the 
memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex 
parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must 
be filed consistent with rule 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by 
rule 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a method of 
electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda 
summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto, 
must be filed through the electronic comment filing system available 
for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format (e.g., 
.doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding 
should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.

Synopsis

I. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    1. In the NPRM, the Commission seeks comment on the next phase of 
high-cost fixed and mobile support in Alaska (the ``Alaska Connect 
Fund'' or ``Alaska Connect''). The Commission asks how it can best 
support the rural and remote areas of Alaska once the support terms for 
the current incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (LECs) and competitive 
eligible telecommunications carriers (ETCs) have ended. The Commission 
has recognized that these areas of Alaska are some of the hardest to 
serve in the country, where many residents lack access to high-quality 
affordable broadband and the opportunity to keep up with the advances 
in technology that Americans living elsewhere enjoy. The Commission 
initiates this rulemaking to seek comment on innovative solutions and 
unique accommodations necessary to continue supporting broadband 
service to Alaska.
    2. Currently, the Commission provides high-cost support to Alaska 
Plan carriers, Alaska Communications Systems (ACS) and Alternative 
Connect America Cost Model (A-CAM) carriers operating in Alaska to fund 
the deployment of voice and broadband networks. In the 2016 Alaska Plan 
Order, 81 FR 69696, October 7, 2016, the Commission stated that it 
expected to conduct a rulemaking prior to the close of the 10-year 
support term to determine how support would be determined after the end 
of the 10-year support term for rate-of-return carrier participants in 
the Alaska Plan, and that the Commission would consider adjustments for 
marketplace changes and the realities of the current time. In the ACS 
Order, 81 FR 83706, November 22, 2016, the Commission stated that it 
expected to begin a rulemaking in year eight of the program to 
determine how support might be awarded for the ACS locations at the end 
of the ten-year period.
    3. In this document, the Commission initiates a rulemaking to 
better understand all the changes, both in technology and in the 
broadband availability and funding landscape, that have occurred in 
Alaska since the inception of the Alaska Plan and ACS Order in 2016. 
The Commission undertakes a fresh look at the most efficient use of 
Universal Service Fund (USF) high-cost support in Alaska going forward 
not only to help connect unserved Alaskan communities, but also to 
support existing service and service funded through other Federal and 
state programs. The Commission relies on its experiences from the 
existing Alaska Plan and the record stemming from proposals in recent 
petitions to develop a framework on how best to structure and target 
Alaska Connect Fund support.
    4. The Commission also concurrently adopted a Report and Order 
(Order) amending existing rules and requirements governing the 
management and administration of the USF high-cost program. The 
modifications adopted in the concurrently adopted Order streamline 
processes, align timelines, and refine certain rules to more precisely 
address specific situations experienced by carriers.
    5. Alaska Connect Fund for Fixed Carriers. In the NPRM, the 
Commission seeks comment on a number of issues to ensure Alaskans 
continue to have access to reliable, affordable high-speed broadband as 
the Commission approaches the end of the Alaska Plan and the ACS Order 
obligations and support terms. The Commission appreciates that Alaskan 
carriers still face unique circumstances and conditions that make it 
challenging both to deploy and maintain voice and broadband-capable 
networks in much of Alaska, including varied terrain, harsh climate, 
isolated populations, shortened construction season, and lack of access 
to infrastructure. However, the Commission also recognizes that much 
progress has been made to date, due to the several years of USF high-
cost support as well as the advancements in technology and the 
availability of additional Federal funding programs for broadband 
services.
    6. Carriers and commenters alike applaud the progress that has been 
made in extending fiber networks to rural and remote areas of Alaska, 
which has brought thousands of residents and small businesses online. 
However, while progress has been made, other commenters and carriers 
point out that much work remains in Alaska to reach unserved and 
underserved residents with the necessary infrastructure. Indeed, based 
on Broadband Data Collection (BDC) data as of December 2022, Alaska 
ranks 55th of 56 states and territories for availability coverage for 
fixed and mobile service. Thus, there continues to be a significant 
need for funding to support broadband service in Alaska. The Commission 
seeks comment on the solutions that will result in the greatest 
improvements in access. How can the Commission ensure the Alaska 
Connect Fund will result in Alaska residents having access to 
affordable service plans? How can the Commission ensure that USF high-
cost support best complements other programs focused on improving 
affordability? Alaska receives support from all the USF programs, 
including Lifeline, E-Rate and Rural Healthcare Program. The Commission 
seeks comment on ways that the Alaska Connect Fund support can be 
utilized to work in cooperation with other USF disbursements to 
optimize the provision of advanced voice and broadband services.
    7. As current funding programs for Alaskan carriers near their end 
dates, the Commission seeks guidance on how USF high-cost support can 
best serve the public interest in Alaska. In so doing, the Commission 
must take into account legislative requirements, improved mapping of 
broadband availability, and broadband support provided by other Federal 
agencies. The Commission seeks comment on the broader picture for 
universal service support in Alaska and urge commenters to address 
specifically the changes in technology, mapping, and other Federal

[[Page 80240]]

funding programs and how they might affect the future of the Alaska 
high-cost support program. In the following the Commission seeks 
comment on targeted issues related to the next phase of the Alaska 
high-cost support mechanism, including eligible areas and location, 
support amounts or mechanisms, budget, term of support, public interest 
obligations, support term, eligible carriers, accountability and 
oversight. The Commission also seeks comment on transitional and phase-
down support, digital equity, broadband affordability, cybersecurity 
and supply chain risk management, and Tribal matters.
    8. While significant progress has been made in Alaska since the 
original Alaska Plan was established, many areas in the state could 
still be considered unserved or underserved; and now, the Commission 
has the required data and the resulting maps to efficiently inform its 
decision making going forward. The Commission can determine statewide, 
using the National Broadband Map, that about 21% of broadband-
serviceable units lack at least 25/3 Mbps and about 27% of broadband-
serviceable units lack at least 100/20 Mbps fixed terrestrial service. 
The Commission can granularly see exactly where those broadband-
serviceable units are located. Furthermore, the National Broadband Map 
allows the Commission to conveniently assess coverage based on 
technology type, which may be valuable to tackle the distinct 
challenges in Alaska. In recognition of the unique challenges of 
Alaska, in the following, the Commission seeks comment on how to define 
unserved and, if needed, underserved for the purposes of this next 
phase for support in Alaska.
    9. The Commission seeks comment on how to determine areas and 
services that would be eligible for the Alaska Connect Fund. 
Particularly in light of the evolving competitive landscape, should the 
Alaska Connect Fund include the same or different eligible areas as the 
Alaska Plan? How does the National Broadband Map data generally inform 
the Commission regarding where to focus Alaska Connect Fund support? 
The Broadband DATA Act requires that the Commission use the BDC and the 
Broadband Serviceable Location Fabric (Fabric) ``to determine the areas 
in which terrestrial fixed, fixed wireless, mobile, and satellite 
broadband internet access service is and is not available, . . . when 
making any new award of funding with respect to the deployment of 
broadband internet access intended for use by residential and mobile 
customers.'' This new data allows the Commission to better assess where 
fixed broadband service is--and is not--available in Alaska. Consistent 
with the Broadband DATA Act, this data will inform the Commission's 
determination of the eligible areas for the Alaska Connect Fund.
    10. Additionally, the Broadband Interagency Coordination Agreement 
requires the FCC, United States Department of Agriculture, and the 
National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to 
``consider basing the distribution of funds for broadband deployment . 
. . on standardized data regarding broadband coverage,'' and the 
agencies meet regularly to ensure the most efficient allocation of 
Federal broadband funding. As noted in this document, the state was 
recently allocated more than $1 billion in Broadband Equity Access and 
Deployment (BEAD) funding and has begun planning for its use. The State 
of Alaska Broadband Office (ABO) was established to strategically 
consider how best to use this Federal funding to connect residents of 
Alaska with advanced technology. The ABO has published on its website 
maps and data related to the estimated costs to serve the remaining 
unserved and underserved areas of Alaska. Additionally, several 
projects have already been established and are underway to build out 
broadband to Tribal and other areas of the state.
    11. The Commission seeks comment on how the funding received by and 
the decisions of the State of Alaska should inform its determination of 
the eligible areas for the Alaska Connect Fund. To the extent there are 
discrepancies between the National Broadband Map and ABO maps, the 
Commission's robust challenge process for the National Broadband map 
can be used to address these discrepancies, and the Commission 
encourages the ABO and other state, local governments and communities 
in Alaska to use that existing process.
    12. Broadband serviceable locations on the National Broadband Map 
can generally be broken down into four categories: (1) those served by 
the ILEC only; (2) those served by both the ILEC and an unsubsidized 
provider; (3) those served by an unsubsidized provider only; and (4) 
those that are unserved. The Commission seeks comment on how the Alaska 
Connect Fund should treat eligibility for each of these types of 
locations? How should the Commission define unserved? The Commission 
seeks comment on whether to establish a definition for underserved? 
Should the Commission define those terms consistent with Enhanced A-CAM 
(E-ACAM), or the BEAD program, or should it adopt another definition? 
Does the Alaska Broadband Office or other broadband support programs in 
Alaska use different definitions, and if so, what are the differences?
    13. Additionally, one of the ways in which Alaska is unique is that 
while villages or communities may be far from urban areas, individuals 
or individual locations within those villages or communities may be 
relatively close together. Accordingly, the Commission seeks comment on 
determining eligibility at a village or community level instead of by 
individual location. How should the Commission define village and 
community for this purpose? Would this approach better help address 
lack of service in unserved areas? If the Commission adopts such an 
approach, how should it address geographically isolated individual 
locations? What is the most appropriate metric for identifying eligible 
locations and how should the Commission define eligible locations for 
this purpose? Is defining eligibility based on village or community 
level instead of location consistent with the BDC?
    14. Middle Mile. Carriers have argued to the Commission that both 
lack of availability and the cost of middle mile is what prevents 
deployment of high-quality, affordable services to the most rural and 
remote Alaskan villages and populations. Satellite networks made 
available after the start of the Alaska Plan are providing higher 
capacity and lower latency middle mile transport. What is the typical 
cost, or range of costs, for middle mile transport in Alaska today? USF 
high-cost Alaska Plan support, like model-based support, may be used 
anywhere in the network, including middle-mile, as long as carriers are 
improving service. In the 2016 Alaska Plan Order, the Commission 
required recipients to report data on their use of middle-mile 
facilities. The Commission seeks comment on how this data should inform 
the distribution of support in the Alaska Connect Fund.
    15. The Commission seeks comment on whether and how it might 
provide direct support for middle mile facilities and transport 
services under the Alaska Connect Fund, particularly in light of other 
Federal programs directed at supporting middle mile. What types of 
middle-mile expenses should be eligible for support? Should the Alaska 
Connect Fund support construction of new middle mile facilities, the 
cost of leased middle mile facilities, or both? Should support for 
middle-mile facilities or services be limited to a certain percentage 
of overall support received? Under Alaska Plan obligations, carriers 
are required to report to the Commission

[[Page 80241]]

on whether new middle mile transport is commercially available in their 
service area and increase obligations accordingly. Are there middle-
mile services that are ubiquitous, reliable and affordable such that 
the Commission should condition support on their use prior to 
authorizing support? Does funding middle mile directly result in more 
affordable retail broadband prices? Should the Commission allow support 
for redundant networks to enhance network resiliency? The Alaska Remote 
Carrier Coalition (ARCC) filed a petition arguing for the adoption of 
its Alaska Middle Mile Expense Support (AMMES) calculator to determine 
funding support amounts. The method, as proposed, would have the 
Commission review carriers' accounting, which is more akin to a cost-
based mechanism. The Commission seeks comment on using the AMMES plan 
calculator for determining middle mile funding support amounts or other 
methods that align with modernizing support.
    16. Direct-to-Home Satellite Services. The Commission seeks comment 
on whether the Alaska Connect Fund should provide support to carriers 
that provide direct-to-home satellite service. Parties have commented 
that the remote and insular nature of some areas within Alaska make 
serving all areas of Alaska difficult with terrestrial-only solutions. 
Indeed, customers are subscribing to direct-to-home satellite service 
available after the start of the Alaska Plan. Although carriers are 
permitted to use satellite technology in their networks, the Alaska 
Plan does not provide support for carriers that provide direct-to-home 
satellite service. These satellite providers argue their service is no 
longer ``expensive'' or ``performance-limiting,'' and just as reliable, 
if not more reliable than traditional fiber-based networks while also 
being ubiquitous.
    17. How should new satellite services factor into the Commission's 
subsidy determinations? In certain communities, will satellite service 
be a necessary component to providing internet for the foreseeable 
future? Should the Commission focus on limiting subsidies for satellite 
services to certain areas of Alaska, e.g., ``extremely remote areas'' 
or ``areas with ultra-high costs''? How would the Commission define 
those terms? What are the physical barriers to receiving satellite 
service or reliable service in Alaska? Are consumer services using 
satellite affordable for Alaskans? How do the costs of satellite 
services compare to services that use terrestrial solutions? Do direct-
to-home satellite providers offer voice service? The Commission seeks 
comment on the need to provide support for voice-only providers in 
communities, even if there is an unsubsidized internet provider.
    18. The BEAD program requires states to establish an ``Extremely 
High Cost Per Location Threshold'' and allows states to fund 
alternative technologies, including technologies that do not meet the 
BEAD definition of ``Reliable Broadband Service but otherwise satisfy 
the Program's technical requirements,'' in order to not exceed that 
threshold. The Commission seeks comment on whether it should take into 
account Alaska's Extremely High Cost Per Location Threshold 
determination in assessing an area's eligibility for the Alaska Connect 
Fund. How can the Commission use Alaska's determination most 
appropriately in its process?
    19. Next, the Commission seeks comment on carriers eligible to 
participate in the Alaska Connect Fund support program. The Alaska Plan 
includes 13 rate-of-return carriers, while ACS, as a price cap carrier, 
receives frozen support. The high-cost program also supports a small 
number of A-CAM carriers operating in Alaska. Carriers and commenters 
have argued that the Commission should fold all high-cost Alaskan 
carriers into one support mechanism going forward. The Alaska Telephone 
Association (ATA) suggests that the Commission allow ACS and A-CAM 
carriers an opportunity to join that mechanism. ATA and ARCC advocate 
that high-cost support for fixed services in Alaska continue to be 
limited to ILECs. However, the record supports, and the Commission 
agrees, that it should explore whether non-ILECs should be eligible. 
While the ILECs do continue to serve the communities, others may be in 
a position to efficiently and effectively serve those same communities. 
Further, the Commission seeks comment on whether in some areas the ILEC 
is no longer the predominant broadband provider, which would make ILEC-
only support inconsistent with broad service availability for 
consumers. The Commission seeks comment on whether any broadband 
carrier serving Alaska (or even those not currently serving Alaska) 
should be eligible to participate in the Alaska Connect Fund. Should 
there be existing minimum requirements for eligibility in the Alaska 
Connect Fund? Should both terrestrial and non-terrestrial providers be 
allowed to participate in the Alaska Connect Fund? Should the 
Commission allow partnerships or consortia to participate? Should 
Alaska A-CAM carriers that did not elect E-ACAM support be able to 
participate in the Alaska Connect Fund? Should carriers that have not 
met public interest obligations under the original Alaska Plan be 
precluded from participating in the Alaska Connect Fund or subject to 
enhanced compliance requirements?
    20. Eligible Telecommunications Carrier Status. The Communications 
Act of 1934 (the Act) requires that all recipients of USF high-cost 
support obtain ETC status. It limits the Commission's authority to 
designate ETCs to situations when a carrier demonstrates that a state 
commission lacks jurisdiction over that carrier. In Alaska, the 
Regulatory Commission of Alaska is the governing body that adjudicates 
that process and designates carriers as ETCs in their service 
territories. As such, the Commission has limited authority to designate 
ETC status to a carrier operating in Alaska. The Commission seeks 
comment on the barriers to obtaining ETC status in Alaska. Are there 
specific barriers for satellite technology in obtaining ETC status in 
Alaska? Should ILECs be eligible to receive support outside of their 
current ETC areas? If the Commission does so, what considerations does 
it need to make regarding the reliability of voice services in those 
areas?
    21. The Commission seeks comment on how to determine the Alaska 
Connect Fund support amounts to best support service in Alaska. The 
Commission has used various mechanisms for determining support amounts 
in the past, including frozen support, adjusted frozen support, model-
based support, and competitive processes. The Alaska Plan and ACS 
support are based on frozen support--meaning that current support 
amounts, which were originally determined through a cost-based 
mechanism, are the same as they were on a specific date. However, as 
the Commission has reformed the high-cost program, it has aimed to base 
support amounts on a forward-looking cost model or a competitive 
process. Additionally, Congress required states, including Alaska, to 
conduct competitive processes to distribute BEAD funding. The 
Commission seeks comment on which of these mechanisms makes the most 
sense for the Alaska Connect Fund. Should the type of support mechanism 
be informed by whether an area is served by the ILEC only, ILEC and 
unsubsidized competitor, only unsubsidized competitor or is unserved? 
If so, which would be the most efficient mechanism for reaching the 
Commission's universal service goals through the Alaska Connect Fund? 
For example, if there are one or more unsubsidized competitors in an 
area,

[[Page 80242]]

does that mean a competitive process would be best? Should the 
Commission endeavor to award funding in a similar or different way than 
the BEAD program? In the recent Enhanced A-CAM Order, 88 FR 55918, 
August 17, 2023, the Commission sought comment on issues related to 
providing support for served locations. The Commission incorporates 
those questions here and seeks comment on their specific applicability 
to the Alaska Connect Fund.
    22. Alaska Cost Model. The Commission has recognized the 
limitations of the Connect America Cost Model (CAM) for Alaska, which 
led to it establishing the Alaska Plan. The Commission seeks comment on 
whether it should develop a cost model to help determine support 
amounts for the Alaska Connect Fund carriers. Would this be an 
efficient way to determine support amounts going forward? What inputs 
are required for a cost model? The ABO introduced a model that 
evaluates, at a high level, the math associated with the cost of 
operating in remote communities in Alaska, but it acknowledges that it 
does not claim the numbers in the model ``match any real-world 
applications.'' The ABO also introduced a technology neutral cost model 
that estimates the capital costs of new broadband projects in Alaska, 
along with supporting maps identifying unserved and underserved 
communities. The Commission seeks comment on these models. Should the 
Commission consider using or leveraging these models for determining 
support amounts? Are there other already developed cost models that the 
Commission could utilize to establish support amounts?
    23. AMMES Cost Calculator. The ARCC petitioned the Commission to 
adopt its AMMES plan directed at providing cost-based support to 
carriers with ``ultra-high'' middle-mile costs. The plan takes into 
account both the capital and the operational middle-mile expenses 
associated with providing high-speed broadband service, using its 
Alaska Middle Mile Calculator Template (AMMCAT) to identify the 
locations that need support. The Commission seeks comment on the 
accuracy and effectiveness of this tool. Does the Commission have 
broader applications in Alaska?
    24. Alaska Competitive Process. The Commission seeks comment on 
whether to adopt a competitive process to award Alaska Connect Fund 
support either using a competitive process similar to the process in 
Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands under the Bringing Puerto Rico 
Together and the Connect USVI programs; or using an auction mechanism 
similar to the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund (RDOF). Is there enough 
competition in Alaska to make a competitive process meaningful? Is an 
Alaska-specific cost model a necessary safeguard for a competitive 
process? The Commission again notes that Congress required a 
competitive process for BEAD funding awardees, including Alaska. The 
Commission seeks comment on whether there are any lessons that can be 
learned so far from the development of the BEAD process that it should 
consider in developing the Alaska Connect Fund.
    25. Frozen Support. The ATA Petition suggests the Commission 
maintain current frozen support amounts for each carrier (adjusted for 
inflation). The Commission seeks comment on whether or under what 
circumstances this is the appropriate way to allocate support for 
recipients of the Alaska Connect Fund. How would the Commission 
determine support amounts for ACS and any other new participants in the 
program? Should the Commission take the same overall support amount 
(adjusted for inflation), but reallocate those amounts among the 
current recipients, and if so how?
    26. The Commission seeks comment on an appropriate budget for the 
Alaska Connect Fund. In considering the budget for the Alaska Connect 
Fund, the Commission seeks to balance the need to provide support that 
is sufficient to achieve its goals, while meeting the Commission's 
obligation not to unnecessarily burden American consumers. As the 
Commission has previously recognized, the cost of universal service is 
ultimately borne by American consumers and businesses. Support that is 
greater than necessary therefore violates the Commission's obligation 
to be a good steward of the USF. In this NPRM, the Commission seeks 
comment on providing two types of funding: (1) support for areas that 
still require buildout; and (2) ongoing support for areas already built 
out. The Commission seeks comment on the budget needed for each. The 
2016 Alaska Plan Order provided for $1.5 billion in frozen high-cost 
support over ten years. The ACS Order provided for $200 million in 
frozen high-cost support over ten years. The ATA Petition suggests, 
even with potentially more participants, that the budget is acceptable 
if adjusted for inflation, and the ARCC Petition proposed $25 million 
for the first four years of its plan to support middle-mile costs only. 
How should deployment progress and expenditures to date inform the 
budget for the Alaska Connect Fund? How should allowing new 
participants impact the budget?
    27. Additionally, the State of Alaska and the ABO are currently 
engaged in the planning phase for BEAD funding, and there are several 
other broadband projects already underway. The BEAD program overall has 
a goal of affordable high-speed internet for all residents in all 50 
states, DC, and the territories by 2030, and Alaska has been allocated 
more than $1 billion in BEAD funding. The Commission seeks comment on 
how Alaska's BEAD and other government funding should affect the budget 
for the Alaska Connect Fund. In the Future of USF Report, the 
Commission noted that preventing duplicative support was its primary 
goal in interagency coordination regarding broadband funding, 
particularly BEAD funding. Accordingly, the Commission seeks comment on 
determining a budget that meets its public interest obligations, 
complements BEAD and other sources of broadband funding, and avoids 
duplicate support.
    28. The ATA Petition suggests that the existing Alaska Plan budget 
be adjusted for inflation and adjusted annually going forward. The 
Commission has adjusted for inflation in various situations in the 
past. For example, in 2018, the Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau) 
set the budget and an annual increase for inflation for legacy rate-of-
return carriers receiving CAF (Connect America Fund) Broadband Loop 
Support. The Commission used an inflation adjustment factor based on 
the United States Department of Commerce's Gross Domestic Product-
Chained Price Index to determine the amount of adjustment. The 
Commission has also used other tools for indexing for inflation, for 
example, the Consumer Price Index from the Department of Labor, Bureau 
of Labor Statistics. Recently, however, the Commission declined to 
adopt an annual inflation adjustment to E-ACAM support amounts. The 
Commission seeks comment on whether the budget for the Alaska Connect 
Fund should be adjusted for inflation, and if so, by how much and how 
often. What is the appropriate method for adjusting for inflation? Do 
all carriers experience the same pressures of inflation? If the Alaska 
Connect Fund supports different carriers and services than the Alaska 
Plan, is an initial inflation adjustment necessary or already built in 
to the newly established budget? ATA suggests that the budget should be 
increased annually. If the Commission decides to adjust the budget 
going forward based on inflation, is annually the right interval?

[[Page 80243]]

    29. The Commission seeks comment on the public interest obligations 
for the Alaska Connect Fund--in particular, speed, latency, data usage, 
and reasonably comparable rates. Should those obligations differ based 
on the whether the location is: (1) served by the ILEC only; (2) served 
by both the ILEC and an unsubsidized provider; (3) served by an 
unsubsidized provider only; or (4) unserved? Does the Commission need 
to establish obligations for underserved locations? In addition, how 
should it account for the type of middle mile being used to serve the 
location? If the Alaska Connect Fund provides support for middle mile 
infrastructure, how does the Commission safeguard against opportunistic 
pricing?
    30. Performance Plan. In the Alaska Plan, each carrier was required 
to submit a performance plan that was reviewed and approved by the 
Bureau. The plans were, and still are, subject to modification based on 
changed circumstances. The Commission seeks comment on whether it 
should continue to use this approach, particularly in light of the 
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Acts (Infrastructure Act) use of 
specific speed, latency and other minimums. If the Commission conducts 
a competitive process based on ability to meet certain requirements, is 
a performance plan still necessary?
    31. Speed. The Commission prioritized 10/1 Mbps in both the 2016 
Alaska Plan Order and the ACS Order, adopting 10/1 Mbps as the minimum 
broadband speed requirement, but it authorized approval of some Alaska 
Plan carrier performance plans that offered faster or slower speeds in 
certain instances. Indeed, some Alaska Plan carriers have committed to 
speeds higher than 10/1 Mbps, including 100/5 Mbps and 1GB/100Mbps. 
Similarly, carriers receiving A-CAM support were obligated to provide 
service at speeds of 25/3 Mbps, 10/1 Mbps or \4/1\ Mbps depending on 
the housing unit density of the eligible areas in the offer. Recently, 
the Commission adopted a speed requirement of 100/20 Mbps for E-ACAM 
recipients.
    32. A recent interested party explained that requiring 10/1 Mbps 
has been detrimental in areas that could benefit from support to 
improve their networks but still may not be able to reach 10/1 Mbps. 
Others suggest the minimum speed requirements should be higher to 
encourage more advanced services. The Infrastructure Act requires that 
its programs establish a minimum speed of 100/20 Mbps. The Commission 
seeks comment on what the appropriate minimum broadband speed 
requirement should be for the Alaska Connect Fund. What factors should 
the Commission consider to determine a minimum broadband speed 
requirement? Should the Commission allow exceptions to the minimum 
speed requirement, and if so, under what conditions? In light of new 
technologies, such as low Earth orbit satellites, are exceptions to the 
speed and latency requirements necessary?
    33. Latency. The Alaska Plan, ACS, and A-CAM recipients are all 
currently subject to requirements to provide and certify the provision 
of service with roundtrip network latency of 100 milliseconds or less, 
subject to middle mile limitations. Under Commission rules, this 
requires recipients to certify to offering ``voice and broadband 
service with latency suitable for real-time applications . . . .'' The 
Commission seeks comment on whether this requirement remains 
appropriate for the Alaska Connect Fund or whether modifications may be 
warranted.
    34. Data Usage. Participants in the Alaska Plan are required to 
provide a usage allowance that evolves over time to remain reasonably 
comparable to usage by subscribers in urban areas, similar to the 
approach adopted for price cap carriers and other rate-of-return 
carriers. ACS was allowed some flexibility to ``offer a usage allowance 
consistent with the usage level of 80 percent of its own broadband 
subscribers, including those subscribers that live outside of Phase II-
funded areas,'' although it does not offer plans with usage limits. The 
Commission seeks comment on the minimum data allowance requirement and 
whether it needs to tailor it in light of changes to the network due to 
availability in access to middle-mile.
    35. Satellite Backhaul Exception. The Commission exempts from the 
speed, latency, and data usage standards (public interest obligations) 
those areas in which carriers rely exclusively on the use of satellite 
backhaul to deliver service. The Commission made this decision based on 
reports from the Regulatory Commission of Alaska that there are areas 
of Alaska that can only be served by satellite, and the assertions that 
satellite backhaul is limited in its functionality compared with 
terrestrial backhaul. Indeed, carriers seeking the exemption must 
certify that they lack the ability to obtain terrestrial backhaul and 
that they are unable to satisfy the broadband public interest 
obligations due to the limited functionality of satellite backhaul. 
More recently, satellite companies have insisted that their services 
are fast, reliable, and affordable. The Commission recognizes that 
there are remote areas of Alaska where satellite service may be the 
only solution for voice and broadband, and it seeks information and 
data on satellite service speed and reliability. Should the Commission 
adjust the benchmarks to account for advancements and availability in 
satellite backhaul technology? Alternatively, should the Commission 
establish benchmarks for carriers serving locations with satellite and 
microwave middle-mile facilities in the Alaska Connect Fund?
    36. Affordability Requirement. The Commission seeks comment on 
requiring the offering of a low-cost plan as a condition of receiving 
Alaska Connect Fund support. The Commission proposes to condition 
Alaska Connect Fund support on participation in the Affordable 
Connectivity Program (ACP) or substantially similar successor program. 
The Commission recently adopted a similar requirement for Enhanced A-
CAM Order recipients, and affordability remains a considerable barrier 
for many Alaskan residents in gaining and broadband access. The ACP 
plays an important role in helping low-income consumers obtain 
affordable internet services. There are currently a number of carriers 
participating in the ACP that serve Alaska. Would the same requirement 
be appropriate for all or some of the recipients of the Alaska Connect 
Fund? Additionally, the Commission notes that beyond it, the 
Infrastructure Act requires subgrantees of the BEAD program to provide 
at least one ``low-cost broadband service option.''
    37. Cybersecurity and Supply Chain Risk Requirements. The 
Commission proposes to condition the receipt of Alaska Connect Fund 
support on the creation, implementation and maintenance of operational 
cybersecurity and supply chain risk management plans. Specifically, the 
Commission proposes that Alaska Connect Fund support recipients be 
required to implement a cybersecurity risk management plan that 
reflects the latest version of the National Institutes of Standards and 
Technology (NIST) Framework for Improving Critical Infrastructure 
Cybersecurity, and that reflects an established set of cybersecurity 
best practices, such as the standards and controls set forth in the 
Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) Cybersecurity 
Cross-sector Performance Goals and Objectives or the Center for 
internet Security Critical Security (CIS) Controls. The Commission also 
proposes that carriers be required to implement supply chain risk 
management plans that incorporate the key practices discussed in NISTIR 
8276, Key Practices in Cyber Supply

[[Page 80244]]

Chain Risk Management Observations from Industry, and related supply 
chain risk management guidance from NIST 800-161. Would it be 
appropriate for Alaska Connect Fund recipients to submit to USAC their 
updated cybersecurity and supply chain risk management plans within 30 
days of making a substantive modification thereto, as E-ACAM recipients 
must? In the Enhanced A-CAM Order, the Commission adopted these 
requirements for recipients of E-ACAM support, making conforming plans 
due by the start of the support term and imposing a reduction in 
monthly support of 25% for non-compliance. The Commission seeks comment 
on adopting the same requirements for Alaska Connect Fund recipients. 
Do Alaska carriers have such plans already created and implemented? Is 
the same non-compliance withholding of 25% appropriate for Alaska 
Connect Fund recipients? What are the differences (if any) between 
Alaska Connect Fund recipients and E-ACAM recipients that might warrant 
different approaches to ensuring cybersecurity? Are there other 
security standards or flexibilities the Commission should consider for 
Alaska Connect Fund recipients?
    38. Reasonably Comparable Rates--Broadband and Voice. The 
Commission proposes that carriers receiving Alaska Connect Fund 
support, like all other recipients of USF high-cost program support, 
will be required provide voice and broadband service at rates that are 
reasonably comparable to those offered in urban areas. For broadband, 
an ETC has two options for demonstrating that its rates comply with 
this statutory requirement: certifying compliance with reasonable 
comparability benchmarks or certifying that it offers the same or lower 
rates in rural areas as it does in urban areas. Due to the unique 
challenges that remain in Alaska, the Commission proposes that carriers 
receiving Alaska Connect Fund support will still be subject to the 
Alaska-specific reasonable comparability broadband benchmarks 
established by the Bureau. The Commission seeks comment on whether it 
should revise how the Alaska-specific comparability benchmarks are 
calculated. How will support amounts affect carriers' ability to meet 
the Commission's broadband rate benchmarks?
    39. For voice service, ETCs are required to make an annual 
certification that the rates for their voice service are in compliance 
with the same reasonable comparability benchmark as required for the 
other programs. The current benchmark for voice services is $59.62 
nationwide. While the Commission has seen no evidence that carriers are 
unable to comply with the voice benchmarks, it seeks comment on whether 
its voice benchmark calculations are still appropriate for Alaska? Does 
the Commission need to create an Alaska-specific voice benchmark?
    40. Earlier this year, the Bureau sought comment on modifying the 
calculation method for determining broadband benchmarks and on other 
changes related to the benchmarks. Are these inquiries also applicable 
to the Commission's considerations for the Alaska-specific benchmarks? 
In the 2023 Broadband Benchmarks Public Notice, the Bureau stated that 
``[i]n addition to an increasing range of speeds, in the last few years 
the Bureau has also noted that Survey data show that some variables, 
such as upload speed and capacity allowances, have become less relevant 
to setting benchmark rates. For example, in some cases, the Commission 
has found that inclusion of upload speed in rate calculations can 
result in anomalies where the benchmark rate rises as upload speed 
falls, likely because download speed is more significant to price 
levels. In addition, in some instances the Commission has found that 
capacity allowances have little to no effect on the benchmark rate.'' 
Does Alaska experience the same anomalies and impact related to upload 
speed and capacity allowances? Is there similar confusion in Alaska 
regarding discounted and non-discounted pricing? Should the Commission 
consider similar definitional updates related to census data? The 
Commission seeks comment on whether there are any challenges for 
current Alaska A-CAM carriers in meeting the Alaska-specific benchmark 
should they be allowed to become Alaska Connect Fund recipients.
    41. Deployment Milestones. The Commission seeks comment on what the 
deployment milestones should be for the Alaska Connect Fund. In the 
Alaska Plan, carriers were required to meet only two specific 
milestones; one by the end of the fifth year of support year and then 
by the end of the final year and report their progress annually. This 
was done to provide flexibility for planning based on the shortened 
construction season and the carrier-submitted performance plans 
identifying the location obligation. How does the term of support 
impact the interval of required milestones, e.g. should an intermediate 
milestone be required if the Commission adopts a support term of 
something less than ten years, and should more intermediate milestones 
be set if it adopts a support term of more than ten years? Are there 
other factors to consider in establishing deployment milestones, both 
intermediate and final?
    42. The Commission seeks comment on a support term for the Alaska 
Connect Fund. The Alaska Plan and ACS CAF II commitments, along with 
several other high-cost programs, have previously established ten-year 
support terms that require mid-point evaluations and milestone 
achievements. The ATA Petition asks the Commission to cut the original 
Alaska Plan program short and start the Alaska Connect Fund in 2024 
rather than at the end of 2026, when the Alaska Plan term is over. It 
also asks for the Alaska Connect Fund to run through 2034, and for that 
term to extend at one-year intervals thereafter absent some other 
decision by the Commission. The AMMES plan proposes an eight-year term 
of support, but support amounts are reduced after year four. Given the 
life expectancy of current technology, the rate of technological 
advancement, and the changing landscape of competition in Alaska, the 
Commission seeks comment on the appropriate support term for the Alaska 
Connect Fund. Does addressing high-cost support in Alaska more 
frequently allow the Commission to more precisely address competition 
and changes in the marketplace? Would a shorter support term improve 
planning and deployment? What impact does the shortened construction 
season have in considering a shorter term of support? Alternatively, 
would a longer support term allow Alaska providers to better plan for 
network deployments and upgrades? What impact do supply chain and labor 
shortage challenges have in considering the length of the term of 
support?
    43. Given that Alaska, like other states, is still in the planning 
phase for BEAD funding, the Commission seeks comment on when it should 
begin the Alaska Connect Fund support program. Would it be more prudent 
for us to wait to move forward with the Alaska Connect Fund until the 
conclusion of BEAD planning and the planning for other projects are 
complete, in order to better coordinate the Alaska Connect Fund with 
other Federal programs? Would waiting impact the ability of Alaska 
carriers to pursue BEAD funding and the resources necessary to support 
BEAD-funded projects? If it does, how so? The Commission seeks comment 
on measures to avoid duplicative support if the Commission does not 
wait to initiate the Alaska Connect Fund. In what ways can Alaska 
Connect Fund support complement BEAD funding?

[[Page 80245]]

    44. The Commission relies on mandatory deployment, reporting, and 
testing requirements and oversight rules to reduce waste, fraud, and 
abuse of program support and to ensure that carriers are meeting their 
commitments to provide high-quality broadband services. As the 
Commission did with the Alaska Plan, it proposes to establish 
reporting, performance testing, document retention, and oversight 
requirements for the Alaska Connect Fund recipients. The Commission 
proposes to maintain the existing framework for potential reductions in 
support for failure to meet any of the Alaska Connect Fund obligations. 
Furthermore, as for all ETCs, the Commission proposes that all Alaska 
Connect Fund recipients will be subject to compliance audits and other 
investigations and enforcement measures as necessary. The Commission 
seeks comment on these proposals.
    45. The Commission seeks comment on any reporting, performance 
testing, or accountability issues in the Alaska Plan that need to be 
refined for the Alaska Connect Fund. Should the Alaska Connect Fund 
require new accountability or oversight procedures, and if so, what 
should those look like? Should the Commission require monitoring and 
reassessment in the Alaska Connect Fund as it has in the Tribal Nations 
and Tribal Lands in Alaska.
    46. The Commission is committed to working with Tribes and Tribal 
leaders. The Commission seeks comment generally on considerations 
necessary for including Tribal governments, Tribal Nations, Tribal 
lands, and residents of Tribal Lands in the Alaska Connect Fund. What 
progress has been made with NTIA's Tribal Broadband Connectivity 
Program and other Tribal broadband program support received in Alaska? 
How has that changed who is providing service to the communities? Are 
the services being provided on Tribal Lands affordable for residents? 
Is there any need to revisit the definition of Tribal lands in Alaska--
are there Tribal Nations, Tribal lands or Tribal entities in Alaska 
that do not fit into the current definition but should be included for 
the purpose of the Alaska Connect Fund?
    47. The Commission recently discussed with Tribal Nations in Alaska 
and their representatives issues related to obtaining ETC status for 
purposes of receiving high-cost and Alaska Plan program support. The 
Commission allows carriers serving Tribal lands to seek ETC status 
directly from the Commission in certain situations. The Commission 
seeks comment on whether there are still barriers for Tribal Nations in 
Alaska in obtaining ETC status. How can the Commission streamline the 
ETC process or other processes to increase Tribal Nation access to 
Alaska Connect Fund support?
    48. Recognizing that engagement between Tribal Nations and service 
providers ``is vitally important to the successful deployment and 
provision of service,'' the Commission implemented an annual obligation 
that requires carriers to demonstrate that they have meaningfully 
engaged Tribal governments in their supported areas. The Commission 
seeks comment on the experience of Tribal Nations and Tribal 
governments and providers in Alaska with the Commission's Tribal 
engagement requirement. Has this obligation led to the successful 
deployment and provision of service on Tribal lands in Alaska? The 
Commission invites comment on whether the its Tribal engagement 
requirements in Alaska need to be strengthened. How can the Commission 
help ensure that service providers meet their existing Tribal 
engagement requirement in Alaska? How can the Commission better 
encourage the participation of Tribal governments in decisions 
regarding deployment of service on their lands. Are there unique 
considerations regarding engagement with Tribal governments in Alaska 
that the Commission should take into account? The Commission seeks 
comment on the potential consequences of failing to meet this 
requirement and whether those outcomes have been sufficient to ensure 
that service providers meet the Tribal engagement requirement in Alaska 
? Should the receipt of Alaska Connect Fund support be conditioned on 
obtaining Tribal consent to provide broadband service for carriers 
serving Tribal Nations and Tribal Lands in Alaska? Or should the 
Commission adopt a Tribal consent framework similar to the BEAD 
program? Is there another framework that could better benefit the 
Tribal Nations, Tribal Lands, and Tribal residents of Alaska?
    49. As previously discussed, carriers are receiving high-cost 
support for Alaska through several different mechanisms, and the term 
for each is set to conclude in a different year: Alaska Plan support 
and A-CAM I will end in 2026, ACS CAF II frozen support will end at the 
end of December 2025. Historically, where a carrier's support term has 
ended before the next phase of support begins, the Commission has 
approved an extension of support to bridge this gap. For example, 
recently the Commission approved transitional support for mobile 
wireless service in Puerto Rico and USVI. The support term begins the 
month after a carrier's final program disbursement and is there to 
bridge the gap until the Commission adopts a long-term support 
mechanism. If the Alaska Connect Fund begins in 2027, ACS will have at 
least a year of gap between its last disbursement and the initiation of 
the Alaska Connect Fund disbursements. If Alaska Connect Fund support 
has not been established by 2027, there will be a gap in disbursements 
for Alaska Plan participants as well. The Commission seeks comment on 
whether and how it continues to provide support so that carriers do not 
experience a gap in support before the start of the Alaska Connect 
Fund. How does Alaska's shortened construction season impact the timing 
and length of providing transitional support?
    50. In addition, the Commission has phased down support for 
providers when changes in the program result in changes in support. For 
example, the Commission established a phase down period for ILEC fixed 
support carriers receiving high-cost support in Puerto Rico following 
the competitive process. The Commission seeks comment on phasing down 
support for the ILEC in any areas in which it is not authorized to 
receive Alaska Connect Fund support.
    51. Alaska Connect Fund for Mobile Wireless Carriers. The mobile 
wireless portion of the Alaska Plan--like the fixed portion--is 
scheduled to end on December 31, 2026. While progress has been made 
toward mobile deployment to remote areas in Alaska in the first half of 
the Alaska Plan, the Commission notes that much still needs to be done 
to ensure that Alaskans in remote areas have access to reliable, 
advanced mobile service, as more than 70,000 Alaskans in eligible 
Alaska Plan areas are still without at least 4G LTE at \5/1\ Mbps. In 
the document, the Commission seeks comment on what the Alaska Connect 
Fund should look like for mobile service providers. As the Commission 
considers how to address the realities of mobile deployment in Alaska, 
as well as the changes that have occurred since the original Alaska 
Plan was adopted, the Commission draws on its experience from the 
existing Alaska Plan for mobile support, as well as the submissions and 
comments of stakeholders.
    52. The Commission has previously recognized that Alaska is unique 
and that mobility support mechanisms in Alaska need to be flexible 
enough to account for Alaska's ``remoteness, lack of roads, challenges 
and costs associated with transporting fuel, lack of scalability per 
community, satellite and backhaul

[[Page 80246]]

availability, extreme weather conditions, challenging topography, and 
short construction season.'' The mobile portion of the Alaska Plan aims 
to provide Alaskans in remote areas with advanced mobile communications 
services at rates that are reasonably comparable to those in urban 
areas. Based on data from FCC Form 477 filings, the 2016 Alaska Plan 
increased the number of Alaskans served with 4G LTE from 33,133 to 
85,865, out of 149,610 Alaskans in eligible areas. According to data 
from the BDC, 79,340 Alaskans in eligible areas were served by \5/1\ 
Mbps 4G LTE as of December 31, 2022. The Commission seeks comment on 
what actions it should take to ensure that Alaskans in remote areas, 
particularly unserved and underserved areas, can access and continue to 
receive reliable and secure mobile service at reasonable prices.
    53. The Commission seeks comment on whether the Alaska Plan's 
frozen support continues to be the right mechanism to address concerns 
with mobile service in Alaska going forward, or whether other types of 
programs or subsidies would be better suited to address concerns. The 
Commission notes that several mobile providers have exhibited varying 
levels of noncompliance with their interim commitments in the Alaska 
Plan. Examples of noncompliance include insufficient buildout to meet 
commitments to Alaskans; inaccurate data filings; failure to 
demonstrate rates and services that are reasonably comparable with 
Anchorage; and failure to update performance plans as required. In 
light of this, how can the Commission better ensure that high-cost 
support in Alaska is helping to bring advanced mobile communications 
services to remote areas in the state? The Commission seeks comment on 
all matters related to the next version of the Alaska Plan, 
particularly the ways in which the original Alaska Plan could be 
improved upon to deliver more reliable and secure mobile service, as 
well as how the Alaska Connect Fund should account for other support 
mechanisms or funding programs in Alaska.
    54. The Commission seeks comment on how to determine eligible areas 
and services for the mobile portion of the Alaska Connect Fund. An area 
had to satisfy two criteria to be considered an eligible area for 
mobile services under the 2016 Alaska Plan Order. First, it had to be a 
``remote area[] in Alaska,'' which the Commission defined as all of 
Alaska except most of Anchorage, Juneau, Fairbanks, Chugiak, and Eagle 
River. Second, eligible areas ``include[d] only those census blocks 
where, as of December 31, 2014, less than 85% of the population was 
covered by the 4G LTE service of providers that [were] either currently 
unsubsidized by the high-cost mechanism or subject to a phase down of 
all current mobile support in the relevant cell block.''
    55. The Commission seeks comment on how to define eligible areas 
for the next version of the plan. What, if any, changes should the 
Commission make to the eligible areas criteria that the Commission used 
in the 2016 Alaska Plan Order? Under the BDC, the Commission displays 
mobile coverage availability data based on both stationary/pedestrian 
coverage and in-vehicle coverage. Which coverage data should the 
Commission use to determine the eligible areas for the Alaska Connect 
Fund?
    56. As an initial matter for determining eligible areas, the 
Commission seeks comment on how to define a base geographic unit for 
purposes of determining eligible areas. Instead of census blocks, which 
were used in the Alaska Plan, the Commission proposes to use the H3 
hexagonal geospatial indexing system (H3 system), consistent with the 
BDC, to identify the areas eligible for high-cost support similar to 
the approach it is considering for the 5G Fund? The Wireless 
Telecommunications Bureau (WTB), Office of Economics and Analytics 
(OEA), and Office of Engineering and Technology adopted the H3 system 
to identify geographic areas where a challenge to a provider's mobile 
BDC availability data can be created based on the locations of on-the-
ground challenger speed tests, and the system has been integrated into 
the BDC verification process. The H3 system is useful because it 
provides a canonical way to reference, index, and compare wireless 
coverage using boundaries that are of a nearly uniform size. In 
addition, the nested nature of the hexes allows aggregation of like-
sized areas to like-sized areas, unlike scaling up from blocks to block 
groups to tracts since these geographic areas can be of widely 
divergent sizes. The H3 system is used to divide the National Broadband 
Map into specific geographic areas, and the Map shows the percentage of 
a hexagon that is ``covered'' (i.e., where a provider has claimed it 
can make broadband available) at different resolutions and levels of 
granularity as a user zooms in or out on the map. Mobile broadband 
coverage is displayed down to the resolution-9 hexagon level (hex-9) on 
the map, and data on such coverage is made available for download based 
on hex-9s. Because of its nested structure, using the H3 system allows 
the Commission to categorize geographic areas at multiple levels of 
granularity.
    57. If the Commission were to use hexagons as the base geographic 
unit to identify the areas eligible for high-cost support, it seeks 
comment on which hexagonal resolution level--e.g., hex-8, hex-9--in the 
H3 hierarchy should be used. Should the Commission determine the 
eligible areas based on the H3 hexagonal units, specifically as 
hexagons at resolution 9? Hex-9s are nearly uniform and standardized 
and can be clearly identified and referenced. Because hex-9s are 
relatively small, with an average area of approximately 0.1 square 
kilometer, any reduction in map resolution when converting from raw 
propagation model output (as filed by providers) to hex-9s is minimal. 
Hex-9s can be aggregated when focusing on an area, such as all of the 
hex-9s that overlap a census geography. However, the small size of a 
hex-9 could also lead to an increase in administrative burden, as it 
takes more of them for a full assessment of an area, given their small 
size. The Commission seeks comment on using the hex-9 and hex-8 
resolutions, as the basis for identifying specific geographic areas 
that are eligible for high-cost support under the Alaska Connect Fund. 
In the 5G Fund Further Notice, 88 FR 66781, September 28, 2023, the 
Commission proposed that the eligible area would be smaller than a 
census tract and larger than a census block group, and it could 
aggregate hex-9s that overlap any desired census boundary. Given that 
some census blocks are very large in Alaska, would a combination of 
census blocks and hex-9s that contain locations indicated by the Fabric 
and road segments be more suitable for Alaska? Would hex-9s be too 
small for this purpose in Alaska, and if so, why and what size hexagon 
should be used?
    58. The Commission seeks comment on how to define remote areas for 
the Alaska Connect Fund. Under the Alaska Plan, eligible areas were 
limited to remote areas of Alaska. The definition of `` `remote areas 
in Alaska' includes all of Alaska except: (A) the ACS-Anchorage 
incumbent study area; (B) the ACS-Juneau incumbent study area; (C) the 
fairbankszone1 disaggregation zone in the ACS-Fairbanks incumbent study 
area; and (D) the Chugiak 1 and 2 and Eagle River 1 and 2 
disaggregation zones of the Matanuska Telephone Association incumbent 
study area.'' Should the Commission still use the definition of 
``remote areas in Alaska'' as defined in Sec.  54.307(e)(3)(i) of its 
rules? If not, what changes should the Commission make to the 
definition for the purposes of the Alaska Connect

[[Page 80247]]

Fund? For example, should the Commission publish a list of ineligible 
hex-9s and make that the operative definition of nonremote areas in 
Alaska? The Commission seeks comment on this approach as well as other 
approaches in how best to define eligible areas.
    59. The Commission also seeks comment on what, if any, changes it 
should make to the requirement in the Alaska Plan that to be eligible, 
a remote census block needed to have less than 85% of the population 
covered by the 4G LTE service of providers that were either 
unsubsidized or not eligible for frozen support in Alaska as of 
December 31, 2014. Under the Alaska Connect Fund, should areas be re-
evaluated for eligibility based on coverage by an unsubsidized provider 
or a provider that is deemed ineligible to participate in the plan? If 
the Commission were to use hex-9s as the base geographic unit for 
defining eligible areas, should it aggregate the hex-9s to a larger 
geographic area and then measure the percentage of that area that lacks 
covered hex-9s? If so, which larger geographic area should be used to 
aggregate hex-9s to determine eligibility? Should a larger-resolution 
H3 hexagon, such as a ``parent'' hex-8 or hex-7, or a larger Census-
defined boundary such as a census block, block group, or tract be used? 
Further, what should that percentage be? For example, should census 
blocks that have 85% or greater coverage of hex-9s with 4G LTE or 
better coverage by an unsubsidized or ineligible provider, based on the 
latest BDC coverage data, be excluded from eligibility in the next 
version of the plan? Alternatively, if less than 85% of a hex-8 or hex-
7 lacks unsubsidized 4G or better coverage based on the hex-9s within 
it, should that hex-8 or hex-7 geographic unit be considered eligible? 
If a boundary other than a larger ``parent'' hexagon is used to 
aggregate hex-9s, the Commission will need to determine how to assign 
and aggregate hex-9s to the larger boundary. Should the Commission 
analyze whether the centroid, or a particular areas percentage, of the 
hex-9 falls within the other boundary? If an unsubsidized or ineligible 
mobile provider is offering 4G LTE or 5G-NR service in a geographic 
area based on BDC data where another provider is receiving universal 
service support, should the Commission continue to provide universal 
service support in those geographic areas? Should areas with multiple 
providers, even if both are subsidized, be eligible? In the 5G Fund 
Further Notice, the Commission proposed making ineligible those areas 
served with 5G-NR at speeds of at least 7/1 Mbps by an unsubsidized 
provider. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal for the Alaska 
Connect Fund.
    60. Middle Mile. The Commission seeks comment on ways to improve 
access to middle mile for mobile providers in the next version of the 
plan. The 2016 Alaska Plan Order created three solutions to address the 
limitations presented by scarce middle mile in Alaska. First, the 2016 
Alaska Plan Order explicitly clarified that frozen support may be used 
to build and upgrade middle mile, even outside of the eligible areas, 
when needed to meet commitments within the eligible areas. Second, to 
better understand the extent of middle mile scarcity, the 2016 Alaska 
Plan Order required all Alaska Plan participants to file maps of their 
fiber and microwave networks and update these maps if they deployed 
middle mile in the previous calendar year, with a format for these maps 
to be decided by the Bureaus. Third, as this was a ten-year plan, if a 
provider did not commit to provide 4G LTE at 10/1 Mbps to an area and 
new middle-mile services became commercially available to that area, 
the provider needed to submit a new performance plan incorporating the 
new middle mile. Moreover, several providers throughout the course of 
the Alaska Plan have noted that middle-mile transport can be 
prohibitively expensive when paying a third-party, especially in areas 
where there is little or no comparable competitive providers.
    61. The Commission seeks comment on how to address middle mile 
concerns for mobile providers in an Alaska Connect Fund. Based on the 
fiber and microwave network maps and middle mile updates that the 
original eight mobile providers submitted, it appears that several of 
the mobile-provider participants could reach areas with multiple 
transport providers--which are areas most likely to offer transport at 
competitive prices--but mobile-provider participants either need to add 
microwave towers or fiber to reach those areas or to link up their own 
network so that all of their service areas can benefit from the areas 
with multiple transport providers. For such situations, how can the 
Commission best proceed in the next version of the plan to ensure that 
mobile provider service areas are connected to areas with multiple 
transport providers? The Alaska Plan explicitly allows funds to be 
spent on building out middle mile, but should the Commission set aside 
funds, as part of the Alaska Connect Fund, to cover capital costs of 
middle mile that can have an outsized impact on the last-mile service 
to an area? If so, how should the Commission make such a determination? 
Do additional conversations need to occur with individual mobile 
providers so that a plan is tailored for them to build the necessary 
infrastructure to reach areas with multiple transport providers?
    62. In an Alaska Connect Fund, should the Commission dedicate some 
portion of support to middle mile buildout? If so, how should the 
Commission allocate such support, and where should that funding come 
from? The Commission seeks comment, for example, on whether some 
portion of the $162 million being allocated for unserved areas could be 
used to support middle mile buildout. If so, how should the Commission 
allocate those funds? For example, could some portion of the $162 
million be reallocated to a fund dedicated to ensuring middle mile is 
being constructed to areas with multiple transport providers or 
internet gateways, where a last-mile provider's traffic would have 
transport pricing subject to more competitive pressures? If the 
Commission were to reallocate a portion of the $162 million fund, how 
could this reallocation occur so as to still serve those 5,000 unserved 
Alaskans who were to benefit from that funding? Could some type of 
reimbursement program--where a provider submits to the Commission its 
costs for constructing infrastructure to areas with lower transport 
costs--be included as part of the Alaska Connect Fund? If the 
Commission were to make such a fund a part of the Alaska Connect Fund, 
how could it do so without interfering with other infrastructure 
programs, such as BEAD? What impact will other infrastructure funding 
programs, including BEAD, have on mobile providers' access to middle 
mile? In its petition, ARCC requests that the $162 million that is 
being accumulated for the reverse auction be reallocated to support 
operating costs of middle mile transport where transport costs are 
above $75 per Mbps. Should such a system that provides additional 
support for high-cost transport be integrated into the Alaska Connect 
Fund? If so, how could the Commission implement such a system without 
creating undesirable incentives for providers to incur higher transport 
costs in order to trigger receipt of this particular universal service 
support (i.e., how could it encourage carriers to seek the lowest cost, 
most-efficient middle mile access under ARCC's proposal)? In 
particular, how would such a system impact mobile service in Alaska, 
and are there considerations regarding this issue specifically for 
mobile services?

[[Page 80248]]

    63. If the Commission does provide funding opportunities 
specifically for middle mile construction, what requirements should it 
impose on providers that receive such funding? Should providers 
receiving support for the construction of middle-mile facilities be 
required to share capacity with other carriers on certain terms and 
conditions, and if so, what should those terms and conditions be? 
Should the appropriate standard for offering such middle-mile capacity 
be just and reasonable, commercially available, or something else? 
Should providers receiving support for the construction of middle-mile 
facilities be required to commit to not raising rivals' costs or 
charging monopoly prices? What wholesale and nondiscrimination 
requirements should apply to providers receiving middle mile funding? 
What sort of evidence should be provided to demonstrate noncompliance 
with such conditions, and what kinds of penalties should incur where 
noncompliance is found? For example, if an Alaska Connect Fund provider 
is charging lower transport rates in areas with multiple transport 
providers than areas where it has an effective monopoly, can it have 
its last-mile support withheld until it lowers its middle-mile rates? 
Could there be some other form of cap on transport prices by Alaska 
Connect Fund participants?
    64. The Commission also seeks comment on the best approach for 
determining whether the availability of new middle mile service should 
result in changes to Alaska Connect Fund mobile providers' performance 
plans. Should the Commission conclude that middle mile is not 
commercially available if the Alaska Connect Fund participant must pay 
a particular price per Mbps? If so, what price per Mbps makes middle-
mile effectively not commercially available to mobile-provider 
participants so that they could not provide rates and services that are 
reasonably comparable to urban areas, such as Anchorage? If new middle 
mile becomes available, but an Alaska mobile provider claims it is too 
expensive to be commercially available, should the Commission adopt a 
process whereby WTB provides notice to the mobile provider on whether 
it is required to submit a new performance plan after reviewing the 
costs and terms associated with the new middle mile service? Should 
providers that are providing fixed services at speeds above their 
mobile services commitments be deemed to have sufficient middle mile 
available to it or are there reasons to believe that middle mile is 
constrained for the mobile provider, even if its wireline affiliate is 
meeting its commitments in an area?
    65. Has the evolution of satellite networks and hybrid satellite-
terrestrial networks restrained middle mile prices at sufficient 
service quality levels that can be integrated into considerations of 
middle mile being commercially available to an area? The Commission 
seeks comment more broadly on how the evolution of satellites, 
particularly the hybrid satellite-terrestrial networks, would impact 
services offered under the Alaska Connect Fund.
    66. Areas Receiving Duplicative Support. The Commission has sought 
to eliminate duplicative support--the provision of support to more than 
one competitive ETC in the same area--in the high-cost program. To 
address the potential for duplicative support over time in the Alaska 
Plan, the Commission indicated that it would implement a process in the 
second half of the Plan to eliminate such support in areas where Alaska 
Plan support was going to two or more subsidized 4G LTE providers as of 
December 31, 2020, as reflected in the March 31, 2021 FCC Form 477 
data. The 2016 Alaska Plan Order also included a Further Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking to address the logistics of how to handle 
situations where the Commission addresses areas receiving duplicative 
support with 4G LTE under the Alaska Plan.
    67. It is generally not the policy of the USF to subsidize 
competition. Under the Alaska Plan, however, in some areas as many as 
three mobile-provider participants are receiving support and serving 
the same eligible area. In a filing before its petition for rulemaking, 
ATA indicated that the Commission should not address duplication before 
BDC data became available. In a more recent filing, ATA indicated that 
reducing support would threaten the financial stability of carriers and 
impact their ability to meet their commitments. How should the 
Commission address situations where two or more prospective 
participants of the Alaska Connect Fund cover the same geographic area? 
Now that BDC data are available for use, what is the best way to 
determine which areas are receiving duplicative support? For example, 
would requiring a provider's performance plan to specify each hex-9 
that it is serving help to identify duplication?
    68. Should the Commission continue to provide universal service 
support to two or more providers in the same geographic area? If there 
are multiple subsidized providers serving the same area, should the 
Commission allow only one subsidized provider to continue receiving 
support in that area? Should the level of service being provided be a 
factor in determining the approach? For example, if two providers are 
offering 2G or one is offering 2G and another 3G, should that be 
treated differently than if two providers are offering 4G LTE? 
Alternatively, does the fact that multiple providers are covering the 
same area indicate that the area should be deemed ineligible for 
support? If an unsubsidized provider enters an area for which another 
provider is receiving support under the Alaska Connect Fund, should 
that provider continue to receive support for that area?
    69. In areas where multiple subsidized providers serve the same 
area, would a reverse auction be the most appropriate method to 
determine which provider should receive the funding for those areas and 
how much funding should be awarded? If the Commission were to 
distribute future funding consistent with a reverse auction format or 
other competitive allocation mechanism, would that be sufficient to 
address concerns about duplicative support going to an area? For 
example, could an area-specific reverse auction determine the provider 
that is willing to meet the public interest requirements for the area 
at the lowest cost? If the Commission were to address duplicative 
support via a reverse auction, what barriers to auction participation, 
if any, would smaller providers face? What actions could the Commission 
take to reduce those barriers, and what would the costs and benefits of 
doing so be? For example, should the Commission offer bidding credits 
to smaller providers that seek to compete in such an auction? 
Alternatively, would a competitive process similar to the Bringing 
Puerto Rico Together and the Connect USVI programs be an appropriate 
mechanism for determining which mobile providers in Alaska receive 
support? The Commission seeks comment on the evaluation criteria 
consistent with this approach that would best determine which provider 
should receive support.
    70. If the Commission does not use a reverse-auction or competitive 
process format, how can the Commission address duplicative support 
going forward in Alaska? If the Alaska Connect Fund continues under a 
similar structure as the Alaska Plan, could the Commission prevent 
duplicative support at the front end by simply not awarding support to 
more than one mobile carrier per eligible area? For example, should the 
Commission immediately redistribute support where there are multiple 
mobile providers

[[Page 80249]]

serving the same area? If so, how would the Commission determine which 
provider should continue receiving support if it does not use a reverse 
auction?
    71. How should the Commission redistribute the duplicative funds 
that were going to such areas? Could this redistribution be done by 
calculating the support that eligible providers are receiving per 
hexagon across all of that provider's service areas and subtracting the 
support that the provider receives per hexagon in a particular service 
area? Should this redistributed funding go into a middle-mile fund, 
unserved-areas fund, or something else? Alternatively, where such 
duplication is found, should the Commission allow the providers that 
would no longer receive support for that particular area to submit new 
hex-9s (where there is no duplication), in order to retain the same 
level of support? The Commission seeks comment on how to address 
duplicative support in remote Alaska, as well as ATA's concerns with 
addressing any such duplication.
    72. Eligibility to participate in the Alaska Plan was limited to 
competitive ETCs that were serving remote areas in Alaska and certified 
that they served covered locations in remote areas in Alaska in their 
September 30, 2011 filing of line counts. Eligible providers interested 
in participating in the Alaska Plan were required to submit a 
performance plan and to have that performance plan approved by WTB. The 
Commission seeks comment on how to determine mobile provider 
eligibility for the next version of the plan. Should the Commission 
limit potential participants to the eight mobile providers that 
participate in the Alaska Plan? Should the Commission determine 
eligibility using the same criteria as before or apply different 
criteria?
    73. The Alaska Plan provided a one-time option for eligible 
carriers to elect to participate and barred the participation of any 
entrants after that point. This structure did not allow for new 
entrants to receive support, even if they fulfilled needs in eligible 
areas consistent with the deployment standard of the Alaska Plan. The 
Bringing Puerto Rico Together and Connect USVI Funds had similar 
structures for support in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, 
respectively. What lessons can be learned from these plans about not 
allowing new entrants to opt-in during the term of support? If the 
Commission relies on performance plans in the Alaska Connect Fund, 
could the Commission accept later entrants after the plan has 
initiated? Should the Commission use the same structure for determining 
the participants in the Alaska Connect Fund? Or, should the Commission 
allow new entrants to opt-in during the term? How can the Commission 
ensure that new mobile providers in Alaska, including those that are 
not ETCs or other potential entrants that are not eligible for the 
Alaska Connect Fund, are not disadvantaged or discouraged from offering 
improved mobile services in an eligible area due to the existence of 
the Alaska Connect Fund support?
    74. As mentioned in this document, some providers failed to meet 
their five-year commitments under the Alaska Plan. Should the 
Commission limit a mobile-provider participant's eligibility to 
participate in the next version of the plan if it failed to meet its 
commitments above a certain percentage at the Alaska Plan's interim or 
final milestone? If so, what should that non-compliance threshold be? 
Alternatively, should the Commission make full compliance with interim 
commitments of the Alaska Plan a prerequisite for a current 
participant's eligibility to participate in the Alaska Connect Fund? 
Likewise, should the Commission limit a mobile provider's eligibility 
if it failed to comply with the public interest obligations under the 
plan, such as the requirement to offer a similar plan, at a reasonably 
comparable rate, to one offered in Anchorage, Alaska?
    75. The Commission seeks comment on how it should allocate support 
among the participants of the Alaska Connect Fund. For mobile services, 
$739 million of frozen support was allocated to eight mobile providers 
over the ten-year period of the Alaska Plan. ATA requests that the 
Commission continue the current support that its members are receiving, 
adjusted for inflation. The Commission seeks comment on that approach. 
The support amounts for the Alaska Plan were set by freezing the 
``identical support'' amounts, which were originally based on wireline 
costs, not mobile costs. As part of universal service reform in 2011, 
the Commission eliminated the identical support rule because this rule 
did not ensure efficient levels of funding for wireless carriers. 
Although the Commission intended to phase down the identical support in 
Alaska as well, the Commission, in order to avoid a flash cut in 
support to areas serving remote Alaska, including Alaska Native 
villages, allowed a delayed phase down of identical support in remote 
areas of Alaska, which was to begin in 2014 or upon the implementation 
of Mobility Fund Phase II and Tribal Mobility Fund Phase II, whichever 
was later.
    76. In 2014, as Mobility Fund Phase II was still being developed, 
the Commission sought comment on the possibility of freezing Alaskan 
competitive ETCs' phase down support and asked whether remote areas in 
Alaska should be subject to exceptions or other conditions for phase 
down in frozen support. ATA responded by proposing a plan, which would 
retain its members' respective support frozen at identical-support 
levels, but members would commit to ``operate, extend, and upgrade 
existing broadband networks and operate and deploy wireless service in 
remote Alaska.'' Support previously going to nonremote areas of Alaska 
would be reallocated to a reverse auction fund that would target 
unserved areas. The Commission adopted ATA's plan for mobile support in 
Alaska, with some modification, and continued the support levels that 
were frozen from the identical support rule. The Commission seeks 
comment on how these frozen support amounts, set over a decade ago, are 
relevant to mobile service in Alaska today. Are there other ways to 
allocate funding support in a more prudent and efficient way? Would a 
reverse auction format, which is to be used in the Alaska unserved 
areas and the 5G Fund, work for all eligible areas of the Alaska 
Connect Fund? Are there other methods for competitively allocating 
support?
    77. As the Commission has reformed the high-cost program, it has 
aimed to base support amounts on a forward-looking cost model or a 
competitive process. The Commission seeks comment on using these 
mechanisms going forward for mobile support in eligible areas of 
Alaska. Under the current funding structure, one provider receives $56 
per committed-to person per year while another provider receives over 
$1,500 per committed-to person per year. This vast difference in ranges 
does not seem to accurately reflect current needs or costs of providing 
mobile service. Is there a more equitable and/or efficient way to 
allocate the funding for the benefit of Alaskans, such as designating a 
particular dollar amount per person served, subject to possible 
exceptions? If so, should such funding be based on the number of 
Alaskans served, adjusted using 2020 census data and the population 
distribution model? What, if any, exceptions should apply? Should the 
Commission use Fabric data to determine this funding amount? Should a 
dollar amount be determined by the number of locations served, 
consistent with the BDC Fabric, and hex-9s with road segments? If the 
Commission set an

[[Page 80250]]

upper bound on the amount of support that can be received per person or 
location committed to, should it redistribute excess funds to those 
getting the least amount of money per person/location or use some other 
method of support distribution that can better serve Alaskans? How 
should the Commission weight population-less hex-9s that have road 
segments?
    78. The Alaska Plan is a ten-year plan that froze support to the 
eight mobile-provider participants specified at the beginning of the 
plan. If new entrants are able to join the Alaska Connect Fund after 
the plan has begun, what conditions should be met to allow late entry 
and from what pool of funds should the Commission consider providing 
support to new entrants in the market? Should any future universal 
service support allow for additional or alternative competitive ETCs to 
receive support?
    79. As the Commission considers appropriate support amounts, it 
seeks comment generally on an appropriate budget for the Alaska Connect 
Fund for mobile service. The Commission seeks comment on how to provide 
sufficient support amounts to achieve the goals of encouraging secure 
mobile service deployment, while ensuring prudent use of universal 
service funds. In what ways should the progress made and challenges 
encountered during the Alaska Plan inform the budget for the Alaska 
Connect Fund?
    80. Unserved Area Funds. When the Commission adopted the 2016 
Alaska Plan Order, the Commission collected funds that were previously 
going to areas that the Alaska Plan deemed ineligible or to providers 
that were deemed ineligible and reallocated those funds to help bring 
service to unserved areas. The 2016 Alaska Plan Order defined 
``unserved areas'' as ``those census blocks where less than 15% of the 
population within the census block was within any mobile carrier's 
coverage area.'' Commission staff estimated that, based on 2010 Census 
data, these areas contained about 5,000 Alaskans. For these unserved 
areas, the Commission planned to conduct a reverse auction to 
distribute the reallocated funds, which staff estimates will total $162 
million by December 31, 2026.
    81. The Commission has not yet created the reverse auction 
contemplated in the 2016 Alaska Plan Order to bring service to unserved 
areas. To the extent that areas that were unserved in 2016 are now 
being served by mobile providers, how can the Commission best bring 
service to unserved areas? Should the Commission continue on a path 
towards completing a reverse auction using these funds? If not, what 
other alternatives could it consider? For example, could a reverse 
auction similar to that used by the Commission in the CAF-II and RDOF 
auctions be used to determine which areas will receive support given 
the budget, and how much support those areas will receive, with support 
going to no more than one bidder per area? Would it be problematic if 
some of the most costly areas were not to be supported through the 
auction? Should the Commission consider a process similar to the 
competitive process similar to the Bringing Puerto Rico Together and 
the Connect USVI Funds? Does waiting on a reverse auction create an 
incentive not to serve these areas out of fear that it would cause a 
provider willing to serve that area to lose potential funding? If $162 
million is not the appropriate amount of funding to serve these areas, 
as it could exceed the per line cap amount, how should the amount be 
determined, and if there are unused funds, how should the funds be 
redistributed for the benefit of Alaskans?
    82. Deployment Standard. In the 2016 Alaska Plan Order, the 
Commission stated that it expected that Alaska Plan participants would 
work to extend 4G LTE throughout remote Alaska. Recognizing the 
limitations in some areas of remote Alaska, however, the Commission 
authorized WTB to approve lesser commitments where middle mile was 
limited, but where new-generation satellite or terrestrial-based middle 
mile became commercially available over the course of the ten-year 
Alaska Plan, providers were required to submit new performance plans, 
factoring in the new backhaul. In addition, mobile providers that could 
not commit to providing 4G LTE at a minimum of 10/1 Mbps were subject 
to additional requirements. Since the adoption of the 2016 Alaska Plan 
Order, however, the Commission has moved towards supporting 5G-NR as 
the standard for high-cost mobile-wireless deployment.
    83. The Commission seeks comment on the level of service that it 
should expect from mobile providers that receive support under the 
Alaska Connect Fund. More than seven years have passed since the 
Commission set the standard at 4G LTE at 10/1 Mbps. During this time, 
mobile wireless technologies have advanced significantly. What minimum 
speeds should the Commission expect mobile participants to achieve, 
especially when support may be used to deploy advanced technologies 
such as 5G-NR? The Alaska Plan supports 2G, 3G, and 4G LTE. For the 
Alaska Connect Fund, should the Commission continue to support 2G and 
3G technologies when most consumers in the U.S. are receiving 4G LTE 
and 5G services? Should the Commission require a minimum, universal 
level of technology of 4G LTE, or should it require 5G-NR? If 5G-NR is 
the new standard of deployment, the Commission seeks comment about also 
making 7/1 Mbps or 35/3 Mbps the universal standard for the purposes of 
the Alaska Connect Fund. If the Commission makes the standard of 
deployment less than 5G-NR at 35/3 Mbps or 7/1 Mbps, is it adequately 
pursuing the statutory universal service principle that consumers in 
rural and high-cost areas ``should have access to'' advanced 
communications ``that are reasonably comparable to those services 
provided in urban areas''? If the Commission requires a minimum of 4G 
LTE at the beginning of the Alaska Connect Fund, should it have a 
mechanism to transition to a 5G-NR technology requirement during the 
term of the plan? On a related note, if over the course of the Alaska 
Connect Fund a new technology generation--i.e., 6G--begins receiving 
support from other high-cost programs, should the Alaska Connect Fund 
have a mechanism to make that the deployment standard during the plan?
    84. Performance Plans. In the Alaska Plan, eligible mobile-provider 
participants were required to have a performance plan approved by WTB, 
and they were required to update these performance plans periodically. 
Participating mobile providers were required to identify in their 
performance plans: (1) the types of middle mile used on that carrier's 
network; (2) the level of technology (2G, 3G, 4G LTE, etc.) that 
carrier provides service at for each type of middle mile used; (3) the 
delineated eligible populations served, at each technology level by 
each type of middle mile as they stand currently and at years 5 and 10 
of the support term; and (4) the minimum download and upload speeds at 
each technology level by each type of middle mile as they stood at the 
beginning of the plan and at years 5 and 10 of the support term. Alaska 
Plan participants that indicated in their approved performance plans 
that they were ``rely[ing] exclusively on performance-limiting 
satellite backhaul for a certain portion of the population in their 
service area'' were required to certify when new backhaul with 
``technical characteristics comparable to at least microwave backhaul'' 
became

[[Page 80251]]

``commercially available.'' Mobile-provider participants that had not 
``already committed to providing 4G LTE at 10/1 Mbps to the population 
served by the newly available backhaul by the end of the plan term'' 
were required to submit revised performance plans factoring in the 
availability of the new backhaul options when it became commercially 
available.
    85. Given the complexities involved with the administration of 
Alaska Plan funds, should the Commission continue to require each 
mobile provider to comply with specific performance obligations under a 
provider-specific performance plan with management of such obligations 
delegated to WTB? If the Commission retains this approach, what changes 
should it adopt to ensure that universal service funds are being used 
to provide Alaskans with advanced mobile service and providers are 
meeting their build-out obligations? The Commission seeks comment on 
what, if any, changes it should make to the performance plan 
requirements in the next version of the plan, particularly in light of 
technological advances since the 2016 Alaska Plan and changes to how 
providers must submit their coverage data to the Commission. Should the 
Commission consider adding a latency requirement and, if so, should it 
be the same as the latency requirements for fixed carriers of the 
Alaska Connect Fund? Should there be a minimum data usage allowance as 
part of the deployment standard?
    86. The BDC has greatly improved mobile coverage maps, but the BDC 
specifications and requirements are significantly different than the 
FCC Form 477 coverage maps on which the Alaska Plan commitments were 
based. Assuming that the Commission requires provider-specific 
performance plans in the Alaska Connect Fund, it seeks comment on what 
changes it should make to the performance plan requirements in light of 
the BDC specifications and reporting requirements. For example, in the 
original Alaska Plan, FCC Form 477 allowed providers the option of 
selecting what minimum mobile broadband speeds users could expect to 
receive, such as 4/1 Mbps from 4G LTE technology, and the provider 
could submit a coverage polygon for 4G LTE at 4/1 Mbps, accordingly. 
However, the BDC does not allow 4G LTE coverage polygons to be 
submitted at speeds less than 5/1 Mbps. The Commission intends to use 
BDC maps in the next version of the plan to the maximum extent 
possible. In light of this, the Commission seeks comment on what the 
appropriate floor should be for speed commitments, and how it should 
capture these data using the BDC. If commitments are set at speeds 
higher than the minimum levels required by the BDC (e.g., 5/1 Mbps 4G 
LTE; 7/1 Mbps 5G-NR; and 35/3 Mbps 5G-NR), can the Commission require 
providers to submit their BDC data at these higher speeds? If 
commitments can be set lower than the BDC floor, how should the 
Commission capture that data consistent with the Broadband DATA Act's 
requirement to base new funding on the BDC?
    87. The BDC requires mobile providers to submit mobile availability 
coverage maps for both outdoor stationary and in-vehicle mobile 
environments. An outdoor stationary environment typically results in a 
larger coverage footprint than an in-vehicle mobile environment. Which 
maps should the Commission require for creation of performance plans? 
Depending on the BDC maps that the Commission chooses to rely on for a 
provider's commitments, what impacts would this have on providers' 
obligations and the funding that it provides? For example, would the 
choice of outdoor stationary environment preclude all in-vehicle mobile 
testing?
    88. Under the Alaska Plan, mobile providers were permitted to offer 
lesser commitments than 10/1 Mbps 4G LTE if they were constrained by 
middle mile but were subject to additional requirements. For example, 
if new middle mile became commercially available in an area where a 
mobile provider committed to provide less than 10/1 Mbps 4G LTE, the 
mobile provider had to submit a new performance plan. Under the Alaska 
Connect Fund, should the Commission continue to permit lesser 
commitments if providers are constrained by middle mile? Have 
technological advances, such as the development of new satellite 
capacity, particularly low-earth orbital satellites, lessened middle 
mile constraints? If the Commission does allow providers to offer 
lesser commitments, what information should be provided to demonstrate 
that an area is middle-mile constrained? The Alaska Plan required 
providers to categorize their performance plan commitments by the 
particular type of available middle mile. This categorization ensured 
that commitments were commensurate with the middle-mile capability 
available. If the Commission forgoes discrete middle-mile technology 
rows in the performance plans, should it affect the commitments that 
providers would make? If the Commission does not require information 
about middle mile technology, are there other ways to address concerns 
about providers offering lesser commitments based on middle mile 
limitations? For example, could the Commission address concerns about 
lesser commitments by imposing requirements similar to the extra 
requirements imposed in the 2016 Alaska Plan Order for providers that 
commit to less than 10/1 Mbps 4G LTE (e.g., submitting an updated plan 
when new middle mile becomes available)? If a provider commits to less 
than 35/3 Mbps, should the Commission require the mobile provider to 
identify all such areas, based on the chosen base geographical unit, 
where it is not committing to 35/3 Mbps, so if new middle mile becomes 
commercially available to those areas, it will trigger a new 
performance plan filing?
    89. The Commission also seeks comment on what changes, if any, it 
should make to coverage commitment requirements. In the Alaska Plan, 
the mobile provider performance plans committed to cover a specified 
number of people. To determine the covered population of each provider, 
WTB and OEA adopted the Alaska Population Distribution Order, which 
distributed the population of a census block to areas where the 
population is most likely to reside. Where an exception was granted for 
the Alaska Population Distribution Model, it was often due to having 
more specific data on where housing was located. Now that the BDC has 
developed a location Fabric, should the Fabric be used to determine 
where populations are likely to be located, instead of the Alaska 
Population Distribution Model for the Alaska Connect Fund? Should the 
Commission somehow translate Fabric locations to population, and if so, 
how should that work? If not, should the Commission do it based on 
coverage of the hex-9 centroid or another method? What implications 
would this approach have for mobile service in Alaska? Would 
commitments based on population from the Fabric lead to some 
unpopulated roads or travel routes remaining unserved, even though 
mobile service is needed along those routes? If so, how could the 
Commission address such a situation? Should it consider a hybrid 
approach that uses both Fabric data and a population methodology or 
Fabric data and uncovered-roads methodology? Alternatively, should the 
Commission move to a geographic coverage requirement or some other type 
of coverage commitment? For example, instead of committing to cover 
population, should the provider commit to cover the eligible hex-9 (or 
whatever

[[Page 80252]]

base geographic unit the Commission uses) to account for the need to 
cover unpopulated road areas (e.g., roads that connect populated 
areas)? What type of coverage commitments will lead to the best 
coverage in remote Alaska?
    90. Updating Performance Plans. Participants were required to 
update their performance plans during the course of the Alaska Plan 
under three circumstances: (1) at the four-year mark of the Alaska 
Plan--December 31, 2020--for the second half of the ten-year term of 
the Plan; (2) if the provider committed to provide less than 4G LTE at 
10/1 Mbps and new terrestrial backhaul or next-generation satellite 
became commercially available to an area; or (3) if WTB determined that 
the filing of revised commitments was justified by developments that 
occurred after the approval of the initial commitments. During the 
course of the Alaska Plan so far, only two providers submitted 
additional performance plans that were accepted by WTB, and both were 
submitted due to the introduction of new middle mile capacity becoming 
commercially available to an area. Several additional providers were 
instructed to provide updated performance plans, based on developments 
that occurred after the initial commitments, but failed to provide 
updates that reflected the developments. The Commission seeks comment 
on what, if any, changes it should make to the requirements to update 
performance plans during the course of the Alaska Connect Fund term to 
ensure funds are used the most effectively for the benefit of Alaskans. 
In particular, the Commission seeks comment on how to determine when 
new commitments would be triggered, how new commitments should be 
determined, and what penalties it should consider for failure to comply 
with requirements to submit updated commitments.
    91. Additional Public Interest Obligations. Alaska Plan mobile 
participants have additional public interest obligations. First, 
providers had to maintain at least the level of service that they had 
been providing as of the date their individual plans were adopted by 
WTB and to offer a stand-alone voice service. Second, providers had to 
certify in their annual compliance filings that their rates were 
reasonably comparable to rates for comparable offerings in urban areas. 
Each mobile provider must also demonstrate compliance with this 
requirement at the end of the five-year and 10-year milestones and may 
do this by showing that its required stand-alone voice plan, and one 
service plan that offers broadband data services, if it offers such 
plans, were substantially similar to those offered by at least one 
mobile service provider in the cellular market area for Anchorage and 
offered at the same or lower rate. Were these additional public 
interest obligations, in addition to the other obligations of the 
Alaska Plan, sufficient to ensure that the public interest was being 
met in extending mobile services in remote areas of Alaska? The 
Commission seeks comment on what, if any, changes it should make to 
these public interest obligations. With respect to the reasonably 
comparable rate requirement, should the Commission adjust the 
requirement in any way? In the Alaska Plan, some mobile providers have 
committed to provide 2G and 3G data services. If the Commission allows 
providers to continue to receive funds for these older generations of 
technology, how should it compare the 2G and 3G plans to plans in the 
Anchorage area, which do not appear to have available data plans using 
these older technologies? Should a provider need to meet the Sec.  
54.308(d) requirement in every area it provides service? How can the 
Commission best advance in Alaska section 254(b)(3) of the Act, which 
seeks to ensure that advanced telecommunications and information 
services in rural areas ``are reasonably comparable to those services 
provided in urban areas and that are available at rates that are 
reasonably comparable to rates charged for similar services in urban 
areas.''
    92. The Alaska Plan is set to end on December 31, 2026. The 
Commission has not determined how support will be allocated to mobile 
providers in eligible areas after this date. ATA asks the Commission to 
start a new version of the plan by January 2024, or as soon as possible 
thereafter, citing the need for advanced planning for future 
deployments. The Commission seeks comment on when to start the Alaska 
Connect Fund. Should the Alaska Connect Fund begin as soon as possible, 
with new commitments? Or should the Commission start it after the 
Alaska Plan ends? Alternatively, if necessary, should the Commission 
extend existing funding until after BEAD support has been allocated, as 
this may affect the type, availability, and cost of middle mile access 
for mobile services? To the extent that funding stability is needed 
beyond the end of the Alaska Plan, as ATA suggests, would this also be 
an issue at the end of an Alaska Connect Fund; and if so, how can 
providers be held to their final commitments? The Commission also seeks 
comment on how to ensure that final commitments to Alaskans in the 
Alaska Plan are honored if a new plan were to start before the final 
commitments are required to be fulfilled.
    93. If the Commission has not made a decision about an alternate 
plan by the end of the Alaska Plan--December 31, 2026--should current 
participants have their support continue indefinitely until the 
effective date of the new plan or some other potential end date, such 
as the date on which the Commission approves participants for the new 
plan or the start of disbursements under the new plan? Should the 
Alaska Plan support be subject to phase down, consistent with the 
original identical support phase down? Also, should participants of the 
Alaska Plan that choose to opt out of or are deemed ineligible for the 
Alaska Connect Fund stop receiving support on December 31, 2026, 
consistent with the Alaska Plan? Or should their support phase out on 
an updated schedule similar to Sec.  54.307(e)(3)(iv)?
    94. The Commission seeks comment on how other funding programs 
should influence the timing of the Alaska Connect Fund for mobile 
providers. In light of the fact that Alaska will receive more than $1 
billion in funding for broadband deployments under the BEAD program, 
which has yet to be allocated to specific projects, and that one 
provider will separately receive approximately $89 million in Federal 
funding to deploy middle mile in Alaska, should the Commission wait to 
start the Alaska Connect Fund until after it has more information about 
these deployment projects, so that it can ensure the most efficient and 
effective use of high-cost funds? What impact will these and other 
broadband infrastructure programs have on mobile service in Alaska, and 
how can the Commission avoid overlap? ATA suggests that the BEAD 
program is a reason to act quickly to ensure funding is stable beyond 
2026, as ``project bidders must provide evidence that they are able to 
provide sustained operation and committed service of a BEAD-funded 
network.'' ATA notes that if improved middle mile becomes commercially 
available in an area served due to the BEAD program, new commitments 
could be triggered in the Alaska Connect Fund. While this approach is 
similar to the Alaska Plan, which requires providers to submit updated 
performance commitments when new middle mile becomes commercially 
available, the Commission notes that the failure of some providers to 
update performance plans when required was a problem in the Alaska

[[Page 80253]]

Plan. The Commission seeks comment on ATA's recommendation that it 
begin the Alaska Connect Fund before BEAD funding is allocated. In 
addition, the Commission seeks comment generally on how best to 
maximize Alaska Connect Fund support and administration for mobile 
services in light of BEAD and other broadband infrastructure programs.
    95. The Commission also seeks comment on the term of the Alaska 
Connect Fund. Given the pace of technology advancements in mobile 
services, the Commission seeks comment on whether extending the high-
cost support to Alaska through 2034, as ATA suggests, would create an 
appropriate support term. Would a shorter term promote flexibility and 
encourage technology advances? Or, alternatively, would a shorter term 
limit the ability of mobile providers to plan for future deployments 
and upgrades? Would a longer term have any benefits? The Commission 
also seeks comment on ATA's proposal that it allows for automatic 
extensions of a new plan in one-year intervals at the end of the term 
unless the Commission acts otherwise.
    96. The Commission seeks comment on how to ensure accountability 
and oversight of the Alaska Connect Fund. The Alaska Plan employs 
carrier self-reporting and drive tests to determine whether providers 
are meeting their commitments to Alaskans. Mobile-provider participants 
in the Alaska Plan also were required to file voice and broadband 
coverage data, consistent with FCC Form 477, which the Commission uses 
to evaluate whether providers were covering the number of Alaskans with 
the minimum speeds and technology they were promised. The 2016 Alaska 
Plan Order required use of the FCC Form 477 for the Commission's 
evaluation of coverage, and though the Commission now uses coverage 
maps from the BDC, WTB and OEA have issued an order requiring continued 
filing of data pursuant to FCC Form 477 rules in order to have like 
comparisons throughout the duration of the Alaska Plan. Providers were 
also required to certify that they had met their commitments at the 
five-year and ten-year milestones. As noted in this document, several 
mobile providers had to re-file their Form 477 data based on 
inaccuracies in their initial filing. What additional accountability 
measures can the Commission employ to ensure that providers are filing 
accurate coverage data? The Commission also seeks comment on additional 
accountability and oversight measures. Under the 2016 Alaska Plan 
Order, mobile-provider participants receiving more than $5 million 
annually--GCI and Copper Valley Wireless--had to conduct drive testing 
with a statistically significant number of tests in the vicinity of 
residences being covered. This required WTB and OEA to construct a 
drive test model and provide GCI and Copper Valley Wireless a sampling 
of grid cells in order for GCI and Copper Valley Wireless to meet this 
requirement.
    97. For providers receiving $5 million or less annually, USAC hired 
a third-party drive tester to measure performance on some of those 
providers' networks to verify their coverage. What, if any, changes 
should the Commission make to the on-the-ground testing requirements 
under a new plan? If the Commission used the BDC outdoor stationary 
coverage maps to measure compliance with providers' performance plans, 
would on-the-ground testing be limited to outdoor, stationary tests and 
there would be no in-motion testing? Should USAC administer all on-the-
ground testing, even for those providers receiving more than $5 million 
annually, to ensure uniformity? Should providers receiving more than $5 
million annually from the Alaska Connect Fund either conduct the tests 
themselves or cover the costs of USAC-administered on-the-ground 
testing as a condition of participating in a universal service fund? 
Should the Commission impose any additional accountability measures, 
such as requiring mobile providers to submit infrastructure data for 
the areas they receive support that meet the infrastructure 
specifications that mobile providers would submit through the BDC 
challenge and verification processes or otherwise expand on the audit 
provision of the prior plan?
    98. Should the Commission consider using the methodologies adopted 
in the BDC mobile verification process as the basis for substantiating 
coverage and demonstrating compliance? Specifically, the Commission 
seeks comment on whether to require providers to submit either on-the-
ground test data or infrastructure data, or a combination of the two, 
to substantiate their coverage in the areas for which they receive 
Alaska Connect Fund support. In particular, should providers be 
required to submit on-the-ground test data for areas that are 
accessible and infrastructure data for areas that are inaccessible? 
Should they submit infrastructure data sufficient to generate a ``core 
coverage area,'' as defined in the BDC mobile verification process, and 
on-the-ground test data for areas outside of such a core coverage area? 
Alternatively, should providers be allowed to submit either type of 
data regardless of the type of area in which they are deploying 
service? For performance-plan commitments made pursuant to outdoor 
stationary maps in the BDC, would in-motion audit testing be 
appropriate for testing that mobile service, and if so, what sort of 
in-motion testing would be appropriate? For performance-plan 
commitments made pursuant to in-vehicle BDC coverage, would a minimum 
in-motion speed of 15 mph be appropriate for drive testing?
    99. How can the Commission best ensure a coverage commitment that 
is enforceable? For example, should the Commission require mobile 
providers to identify all of the specific hex-9s they commit to serve? 
Should commitment information be made public? In addition to requiring 
providers to submit coverage area information to ensure they have met 
their commitments, should the Commission also require that they submit 
infrastructure data and/or on-the-ground speed test data for the 
supported areas, as contemplated in the 5G Fund Further Notice?
    100. If a provider chooses to submit on-the-ground test data in 
response to a BDC mobile verification request, it must provide such 
data based on a sample of on-the-ground tests that is statistically 
appropriate for the area tested. In the BDC, the sampled area is based 
on H3 resolution-8 hexagonal areas, and the provider must submit the 
results of at least two tests within each hexagon, and the time of the 
tests must be at least four hours apart, irrespective of date. The 
tests are then evaluated to confirm, using a one-sided 95% statistical 
confidence interval, that the cell coverage has at least a 90% 
probability of meeting the minimum speed requirements at the cell edge. 
Should the Commission apply this BDC mobile verification process to the 
Alaska Connect Fund, at a hex-9 resolution, instead of a hex-8, and 
require mobile providers to submit on-the-ground test data based on a 
sample of supported areas? The Commission seeks comment on this 
approach. Do commenters believe that more tests or fewer tests should 
be required within a hexagonal area? Should the tests be spaced further 
than four hours apart or closer together?
    101. If a provider chooses to submit infrastructure data in 
response to a BDC mobile verification request, it must submit 
additional information beyond what is submitted as part of its biannual 
BDC availability data (propagation modeling details, as well as link 
budget and clutter data), including cell-site and antenna data for the 
targeted area. Should the Commission require the same additional 
infrastructure data that is required in the mobile verification process 
when a provider chooses to

[[Page 80254]]

submit infrastructure data to substantiate coverage in areas supported 
by the Alaska Connect Fund? The Commission seeks comment on this 
approach.
    102. In the 2016 Alaska Plan Order, the interim milestone 
commitments were due December 31, 2021. This initial assessment 
resulted in several noncompliance letters and occasional confusion 
regarding what the mobile-provider participant had committed to. Should 
the next version of the plan have more than just one interim-commitment 
milestone dates to ensure that each provider is making steady progress 
toward its final commitments, as well as ensure that the provider has 
more opportunities to comply where it may have a misunderstanding of 
its obligations? Would having multiple interim milestones within the 
Alaska Connect Fund term raise concerns? Could compliance issues also 
be improved through annual progress meetings? Should the Commission 
impose stricter requirements on providers that had a higher percentage 
of non-compliance, such as annual on-the-ground testing requirements or 
quarterly submission of infrastructure data based on the BDC 
infrastructure data specifications or a combination of both? What 
safeguards can the Commission adopt to improve compliance?
    103. As noted in this document, the Commission is committed to 
working with Tribes and Tribal leaders. The Commission seeks comment on 
issues related to Tribal Nations and Tribal Lands in Alaska as it 
considers the Alaska Connect Fund for mobile providers. Are there any 
Tribal concerns that arise from or could be addressed by the Alaska 
Connect Fund that are specific to mobile service, and if so, how should 
those issues best be addressed?
    104. Cybersecurity. Are there any cybersecurity concerns that arise 
from or could be addressed by an Alaska Connect Fund that are specific 
to mobile service, and if so, how should those issues best be 
addressed? The Supply Chain Reimbursement Program proceedings, for 
example, have required three mobile-provider participants in the Alaska 
Plan to remove equipment from untrusted suppliers and, as a practical 
matter, allowed for network upgrades in the process. Are there security 
advantages from that proceeding that other providers should integrate? 
Should mobile-provider participants in the Alaska Connect Fund be 
required to use the NIST Framework for Improving Critical 
Infrastructure Cybersecurity to manage cybersecurity risks and certify 
accordingly? The Commission proposes that Alaska Connect Fund support 
recipients be required to implement a cybersecurity risk management 
plan that reflects the latest version of the NIST Framework for 
Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity, that reflects an 
established set of cybersecurity best practices, such as the standards 
and controls set forth in the CISA Cybersecurity Cross-sector 
Performance Goals and Objectives or the CIS Critical Security Controls 
as these elements pertain to mobile service. The Commission also 
proposes that carriers be required to implement supply chain risk 
management plans that incorporate the key practices discussed in NISTIR 
8276, Key practices in the Cyber Supply Chain Risk Management 
Observations from Industry, and related supply chain risk management 
guidance from NIST 800-161. Would it be appropriate for Alaska Connect 
Fund recipients to submit to USAC their updated cybersecurity and 
supply chain risk management plans within 30 days of making a 
substantive modification thereto, as E-ACAM recipients must? The 
Commission proposes providers receiving support under the Alaska 
Connect Fund adopt the same cybersecurity reporting requirements that 
were adopted in the E-ACAM Notice for both mobile and fixed carriers. 
The Commission seeks comment on this proposal. What reasons, if any, 
would support differences in cybersecurity requirements between the 
mobile and fixed carriers under the Alaska Connect Fund?
    105. Open RAN. The Commission seeks comment on whether it should 
use the Alaska Connect Fund to encourage the deployment of Open RAN, 
and if so, how. In its March 2021 Open RAN NOI, 86 FR 16349, March 29, 
2021, the Commission sought input on ``whether, and if so, how, 
deployment of Open RAN-compliant networks could further the 
Commission's policy goals and statutory obligations, advance 
legislative priorities, and benefit American consumers by making state-
of-the-art wireless broadband available faster and to more people in 
additional parts of the country.'' Soon after the Open RAN NOI was 
adopted, the President signed Executive Order 14036, which encouraged 
the Commission to ``consider . . . providing support for the continued 
development and adoption of 5G Open Radio Access Network . . . 
protocols and software.'' The Commission has since sought comment in 
the 5G Fund Further Notice on whether and how it should factor the use 
of Open RAN technologies into the 5G Fund, noting that ``Open RAN has 
the potential to allow carriers to promote the security of their 
networks while driving innovation, in particular in next-generation 
technologies like 5G, lowering costs, increasing vendor diversity, and 
enabling more flexible network architecture.'' Should the Alaska 
Connect Fund encourage Open RAN? If so, how should it do this? In 
addressing these questions, commenters should identify with 
particularity industry-accepted Open RAN specifications, standards, or 
technical requirements that would represent suitable evaluative 
criteria for mobile providers in remote Alaska.
    106. Renewable Energy. Fuel costs are expensive in Alaska. And some 
of this directly affects communications infrastructure operation, such 
as microwave towers that may be isolated from other infrastructure and 
require diesel fuel to be brought to the site via helicopter to remote 
sites. Can the Commission require or create incentives for the use of 
renewable energy--such as a combination of wind, solar, and batteries--
to be used at microwave tower or other communications infrastructure 
sites, which could lower operational expenditures around fuel costs, as 
well as be more environmentally friendly?
    107. To the extent not already addressed, the Commission, as part 
of its continuing effort to advance digital equity for all, including 
people of color, persons with disabilities, persons who live in rural 
or Tribal areas, and others who are or have been historically 
underserved, marginalized, or adversely affected by persistent poverty 
or inequality, invites comment on any equity-related considerations and 
benefits (if any) that may be associated with the proposals and issues 
discussed herein. Specifically, the Commission seeks comment on how its 
inquiries may promote or inhibit advances in diversity, equity, 
inclusion, and accessibility, as well the scope of the Commission's 
relevant legal authority.

II. Procedural Matters

Paperwork Reduction Act

    108. The NPRM contains possible new or modified information 
collection requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing 
effort to reduce paperwork burdens, will invite the general public and 
the Office of Management and Budget to comment on the information 
collection requirements contained in the NPRM, as required by the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,

[[Page 80255]]

Public Law 104-13. In addition, pursuant to the Small Business 
Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 
3506(c)(4), the Commission seeks specific comment on how it might 
further reduce the information collection burden for small business 
concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
    109. Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act. The 
Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act requires each agency, 
in providing notice of a rulemaking, to post online a brief plain-
language summary of the proposed rule. Accordingly, the Commission will 
publish the required summary of the NPRM on https://www.fcc.gov/proposed-rulemakings.
    110. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as 
amended (RFA), the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities by the policies and rules 
proposed in the NPRM. Written public comments are requested on this 
IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be 
filed by the deadlines for comments provided in the NPRM. The 
Commission will send a copy of the NPRM, including this IRFA, to the 
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA). 
In addition, the NPRM and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published 
in the Federal Register.
    111. In the NPRM, the Commission seeks comment regarding the best 
approach for developing the next phase for the Alaska Connect Fund in 
order to determine the most effective means of supporting Alaska's 
remote areas once fixed and mobile support for both incumbent and 
competitive LECs have ended. The Commission has recognized the inherent 
challenges in serving these areas of Alaska and understands the 
necessity in providing innovative solutions and unique accommodations 
to residents and businesses alike. The Commission also recognizes that 
there are areas of Alaska that still lack high-quality affordable 
broadband, where residents may be deprived of the opportunity to keep 
up with the advancements in technology that Americans living elsewhere 
benefit from. Currently, the Commission provides high-cost support to 
Alaska Plan fixed and mobile carriers, ACS, and A-CAM carriers. In the 
2016 Alaska Plan Order, the Commission stated that it would conduct a 
rulemaking prior to the close of the 10-year support term to determine 
whether and how support would be provided after the end of the 10-year 
support term, and that the Commission would consider adjustments for 
marketplace changes and the realities of the current time. In the ACS 
Order, the Commission stated that it would conduct a rulemaking in year 
eight of the program to determine how support would be awarded for the 
areas at the conclusion of the program. In the NPRM, the Commission 
initiates those rulemakings as a means of assessing all of the changes, 
both in technology and in the broadband funding landscape, that have 
occurred in Alaska since the inception of the Alaska Plan and the ACS 
Order in 2016. The Commission also undertakes a fresh look at the most 
efficient use of Universal Service Fund high-cost support in Alaska 
going forward not only to help connect unserved Alaskan communities but 
also to support existing service and service funded through other 
Federal and state programs. The Commission relies on the experiences of 
the Alaskan carriers--many of which are small business entities--and 
the record stemming from proposals in recent petitions to build a 
record on how best to structure and target Alaska Connect Fund support.
    112. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, 
where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be 
affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA generally defines 
the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms 
``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small governmental 
jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business'' has the same 
meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the Small Business 
Act.'' A ``small business concern'' is one which: (1) is independently 
owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and 
(3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA.
    113. Small Businesses, Small Organizations, and Small Governmental 
Jurisdictions. The Commission's actions, over time, may affect small 
entities that are not easily categorized at present. The Commission 
therefore describes here, at the outset, three broad groups of small 
entities that could be directly affected herein. First, while there are 
industry specific size standards for small businesses that are used in 
the regulatory flexibility analysis, according to data from the SBA's 
Office of Advocacy, in general a small business is an independent 
business having fewer than 500 employees. These types of small 
businesses represent 99.9% of all businesses in the United States which 
translates to 33.2 million businesses. Next, the type of small entity 
described as a ``small organization'' is generally ``any not-for-profit 
enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not 
dominant in its field.'' The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) uses a 
revenue benchmark of $50,000 or less to delineate its annual electronic 
filing requirements for small exempt organizations. Nationwide, for tax 
year 2020, there were approximately 447,689 small exempt organizations 
in the U.S. reporting revenues of $50,000 or less according to the 
registration and tax data for exempt organizations available from the 
IRS. Finally, the small entity described as a ``small governmental 
jurisdiction'' is defined generally as ``governments of cities, 
counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special 
districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.'' U.S. Census 
Bureau data from the 2017 Census of Governments indicate there were 
90,075 local governmental jurisdictions consisting of general purpose 
governments and special purpose governments in the United States. Of 
this number, there were 36,931 general purpose governments (county, 
municipal, and town or township) with populations of less than 50,000 
and 12,040 special purpose governments--independent school districts 
with enrollment populations of less than 50,000. Accordingly, based on 
the 2017 U.S. Census of Governments data, the Commission estimates that 
at least 48,971 entities fall into the category of ``small governmental 
jurisdictions.''
    114. Small entities potentially affected by the rules herein 
include Wired Telecommunications Carriers, LECs, Incumbent LECs, 
Competitive LECs, Interexchange Carriers (IXC's), Local Resellers, Toll 
Resellers, Other Toll Carriers, Prepaid Calling Card Providers, Fixed 
Microwave Services, Cable and Other Subscription Programming, Cable 
Companies and Systems (Rate Regulation), Cable System Operators 
(Telecom Act Standard), Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless 
Communications Equipment Manufacturing, Satellite Telecommunications, 
Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite), All Other 
Telecommunications, Wired Broadband internet Access Service Providers 
(Wired ISPs), Wireless Broadband internet Access Service Providers 
(Wireless ISPs or WISPs), internet Service Providers (Non-Broadband), 
and All Other Information Services.
    115. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant, 
specifically small business, alternatives that it has

[[Page 80256]]

considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the 
following four alternatives (among others): ``(1) the establishment of 
differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take 
into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the 
clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and 
reporting requirements under the rule for such small entities; (3) the 
use of performance rather than design standards; and (4) an exemption 
from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for such small 
entities.''
    116. In the NPRM, the Commission takes steps to minimize the 
economic impact on small entities and considers significant 
alternatives by proposing and seeking alternative proposals designed to 
balance its requirements to provide support that is sufficient to 
achieve the Commission's universal service goals, while also providing 
appropriate incentives for prudent and efficient expenditures. With 
these goals in mind, in the NPRM, the Commission took the steps of 
considering measures related to the budget for the Alaska Connect Fund 
support mechanism that could potentially benefit legacy support 
recipients, including small entities, by having their support shifted 
towards costs that are trending higher for such carriers. For example, 
the Commission considered providing funding for both areas that still 
requires buildout and ongoing support for areas that are already built 
out. In addition, the Commission also considered allowing the option to 
participate in the Alaska Connect Fund for small entities and other 
carriers that are not current support recipients. In considering these 
matters, the Commission notes that the costs of high-cost universal 
service is ultimately borne by consumers through the contributions 
factors assessed on their bills.
    117. The Commission also considered alternatives for specific 
deployment obligations for carriers receiving Alaska Plan support. For 
example, the Commission considered whether it should change the 
obligations to require the deployment of broadband at a different 
speed, for example 100/20 Mbps consistent with the Infrastructure Act. 
Alternatively, the Commission considered retaining the existing 
requirement that support recipients offer broadband at speeds of 25/3 
Mbps deployment obligations, as well as revisiting deployment 
obligations to account for another government agency making a 
qualifying award with enforceable deployment obligations in the 
carrier's service area. If the Commission were to adopt lower broadband 
speed obligations, like 25/3 Mbps, it might reduce costs for small and 
other legacy support recipients. A carrier's costs may also be reduced 
if other funding programs award funding in the rate-of-return carrier's 
service area, and that carrier is no longer required to serve the 
locations receiving the alternative funding. However, these scenarios 
may affect support for such carriers if the Commission adjusts support 
to account for the lower costs or duplicative funding.
    118. Additionally, the Commission considered alternatives for 
specific deployment obligations for mobile-provider participants that 
receive Alaska Connect Fund support. For example, the Commission 
considered whether it should require the deployment of 5G-NR at 35/3 
Mbps, or whether it should revisit deployment obligations to account 
for another agency making a qualifying award with enforceable 
deployment obligations in the carrier's service area. If the Commission 
were to adopt lower broadband speed obligations, like \7/1\ Mbps, it 
might reduce costs for small and other legacy support recipients. A 
carrier's costs may also be reduced if other funding programs award 
grants in the mobile participant's awarded area, and if carriers 
receiving duplicative support are no longer required to serve the 
locations receiving the alternative funding. However, as is the case 
for rate-of-return carriers, these scenarios may result in the 
reduction of support for these carriers if the Commission adjusts 
support to account for the lower costs or duplicative funding.
    119. Lastly, in consideration of reducing the economic burden small 
and other entities might experience, the Commission seeks comment on 
alternatives for reducing a carrier's support amount to reflect the 
availability of funding from other Federal and state programs in their 
service areas or to reflect that an unsubsidized competitor serves the 
area. For example, the Commission could identify whether the timing for 
BEAD funding, which instructs states to award funding for unserved 
locations, underserved locations and community anchor institutions, 
overlaps with the Alaska Connect Fund funding, thereby warranting 
changing the timing for awarding support amounts.
    120. The matters discussed in the NPRM are designed to ensure the 
Commission has a better understanding of both the benefits and the 
potential burdens associated with the different actions and methods 
before adopting its final rules.
    121. To assist in the Commission's evaluation of the economic 
impact on small entities, as a result of actions it has proposed in the 
NPRM, and to better explore options and alternatives, the Commission 
has sought comment from the parties. In particular, the Commission 
seeks comment on whether any of the burdens associated the filing, 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements described in this document can 
be minimized for small businesses. Through comments received in 
response to the NPRM and the IRFA, including costs and benefits 
information and any alternative proposals, the Commission expects to 
more fully consider ways to minimize the economic impact on small 
entities. The Commission's evaluation of the comments filed in this 
proceeding will shape the final alternatives it considers, the final 
conclusions it reaches, and the actions it ultimately takes in this 
proceeding to minimize any significant economic impact that may occur 
on small entities as a result of any final rules that are adopted.

III. Ordering Clauses

    122. It is ordered that, pursuant to the authority contained in 
sections 1, 2, 4, 5, 201-06, 214, 218-220, 251-52, 254, 256, 301, 303, 
309, 332, and 403, and of the Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151-52, 154-
55, 201-06, 214, 218-20, 251-52, 254, 256, 301, 303, 309, 332, and 403 
this NPRM is adopted. This NPRM will be effective upon publication in 
the Federal Register, with comment dates indicated therein.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary, Office of the Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-25375 Filed 11-16-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P