Connect America Fund, Alaska Connect Fund, Connect America Fund-Alaska Plan, ETC Annual Reports and Certifications, Telecommunications Carriers Eligible To Receive Universal Service Support, Universal Service Reform-Mobility Fund, 96166-96176 [2024-28170]

Agencies

• FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 233 (Wednesday, December 4, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 96166-96176]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-28170]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 54

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


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

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

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

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

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by WC Docket Nos. 10-90, 
23-328, 16-271, 14-58, 09-197 or WT Docket No. 10-208 by any of the 
following methods:
     Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically 
using the internet by accessing the Electronic Comment Filing System 
(ECFS): https://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 hand or messenger delivery, by 
commercial courier, or by the U.S. Postal Service. All filings must be 
addressed to the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
     Hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for 
the Commission's Secretary are accepted between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. 
by the FCC's mailing contractor at 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis 
Junction, MD 20701. All hand deliveries must be held together with 
rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of 
before entering the building.
     Commercial courier deliveries (any deliveries not by the 
U.S. Postal Service) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis 
Junction, MD 20701.
     Filings sent by U.S. Postal Service First-Class Mail, 
Priority Mail, and Priority Mail Express must be sent to 45 L Street 
NE, Washington, DC 20554.
    People with Disabilities. To request materials in accessible 
formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic 
files, audio format), send an email to [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, 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 FNPRM 
in WC Docket Nos. 10-90, 23-328, 16-271, 14-58, 09-197 and WT Docket 
No. 10-208; FCC 24-116, adopted on November 1, 2024 and released on 
November 4, 2024. The full text of this document is available at the 
following internet address: https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-adopts-alaska-connect-fund-further-address-broadband-needs. The Commission 
also concurrently adopted a Report and Order (Order) that takes 
important and necessary steps to ensure continued support for the 
advancement of modern mobile and fixed broadband service in Alaska.
    Filing Requirements. Pursuant to Sec. Sec.  1.415 and 1.419 of the 
Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file 
comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated in this 
document. Comments may be filed using the Commission's ECFS or by 
paper. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, 
Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
    Ex Parte Rules. This proceeding shall be treated as a ``permit-but-
disclose'' proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte 
rules. Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any 
written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation 
within two business days after the presentation (unless a different 
deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making 
oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the 
presentation must: (1) list all persons attending or otherwise 
participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was 
made, and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during 
the presentation. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of 
the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the 
presenter's written comments, memoranda, or other filings in the 
proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such data or 
arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings 
(specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data 
or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the 
memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex 
parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must 
be filed consistent with Rule 1.1206(b), 47 CFR 1.1206(b). Participants 
in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the Commission's 
ex parte rules.
    Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act. Consistent with 
the Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act, Public Law 118-
9, a summary of the FNPRM is available on https://www.fcc.gov/proposed-rulemakings.

Synopsis

I. Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

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

[[Page 96167]]

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

[[Page 96168]]

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

[[Page 96169]]

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

[[Page 96170]]

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

[[Page 96171]]

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

[[Page 96172]]

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

[[Page 96173]]

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

[[Page 96174]]

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

[[Page 96175]]

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

II. Procedural Matters

Paperwork Reduction Act

    The FNPRM contains possible new or modified information collection 
requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to 
reduce paperwork burdens, will invite the general public and the Office 
of Management and Budget to comment on the information collection 
requirements contained in this document, as required by the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, pursuant to the 
Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public

[[Page 96176]]

Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the Commission seeks specific 
comment on how it might further reduce the information collection 
burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
    As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended 
(RFA), the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities by the policies in this document. 
Written public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be 
identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines 
for comments provided in this document. The Commission will send a copy 
of the FNPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of 
the Small Business Administration.
    In the FNPRM, the Commission seeks comment on several issues 
pertaining to the implementation of the ACF. In doing so, the 
Commission continues to work towards its objectives of providing 
service to rural and high-cost areas of Alaska, which historically are 
some of the most difficult and costliest areas to serve in the country 
and where many residents continue to lack access to the high-quality, 
affordable broadband service enjoyed by other parts of our nation. 
Specifically, the Commission seeks comment on ACF Mobile Phase II 
service goals or requirements, as well as on a methodology to determine 
a single support amount for areas where more than one provider had been 
receiving support for overlapping service areas, as well as for use in 
determining support amounts for areas that the Commission deems 
ineligible in the concurrently adopted Order. Additionally, the 
Commission seeks comment on how to resolve duplicative funding so that 
only one provider would continue receiving support in the area, in 
particular proposing two possible mechanisms to address this issue. 
Further comment is also sought to update the record on how best to 
deploy service to unserved areas using the approximately $162 million 
collected from the Alaska Plan. Finally, the Commission seeks comment 
on additional issues, such as retail consumer conditions, Open RAN, and 
Tribal consent under the ACF. In further developing the record in this 
proceeding, the Commission relies on the experiences of carriers with 
operations in Alaska, many of which are small business entities, to 
build a record on how best to implement the ACF.
    The proposed action is authorized pursuant to sections 4(i), 214, 
254, 303(r), and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 
U.S.C. 154(i), 201, 205, 214, 254, 303(r), 403, and Sec. Sec.  1.1 and 
1.421 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.1, 1.421.
    Small entities potentially affected by the rules herein include 
Wired Telecommunications Carriers, LECs, Incumbent LECs, Competitive 
LECs, Interexchange Carriers (IXC's), Local Resellers, Toll Resellers, 
Other Toll Carriers, Prepaid Calling Card Providers, Fixed Microwave 
Services, Cable and Other Subscription Programming, Cable Companies and 
Systems (Rate Regulation), Cable System Operators (Telecom Act 
Standard), Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless 
Communications Equipment Manufacturing, Satellite Telecommunications, 
Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite), All Other 
Telecommunications, Wired Broadband internet Access Service Providers 
(Wired ISPs), Wireless Broadband internet Access Service Providers 
(Wireless ISPs or WISPs), internet Service Providers (Non-Broadband), 
and All Other Information Services.
    Potential rules resulting from comments in the FNPRM, could impose 
new or additional recordkeeping and reporting requirements for small 
and other entities, if adopted. Specifically, in the FNPRM, the 
Commission seeks comment on a number of issues related to the 
implementation of the ACF. For example, the FNPRM seeks comment on 
setting a minimum goal of deployment of 5G-NR 7/1 Mbps for all mobile 
providers participating in ACF Mobile Phase II, as well as whether any 
exemptions should be made for certain areas. Under the competitive 
mechanism, providers seeking to participate would submit proposals 
including coverage maps for the areas where more than one provider 
currently receives support, as well as the surrounding community where 
no provider or only a single provider may currently offer service. The 
coverage map would comply with BDC mobile coverage data requirements 
and would predict 5G-NR coverage in an outdoor stationary environment. 
An ETC may propose to cover a tract with 5G-NR 7/1 Mbps service or 5G-
NR 35/3 Mbps service, but separate coverage maps must be submitted for 
each proposed service. For the alternative mechanism, the Commission 
seeks comment on whether to set a minimum goal of deployment for 
support under ACF Mobile Phase II of 5G-NR 7/1 Mbps measured in an 
outdoor stationary environment.
    The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives 
that could minimize impacts to small entities that it has considered in 
reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four 
alternatives (among others): ``(1) the establishment of differing 
compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into 
account the resources available to small entities; (2) the 
clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and 
reporting requirements under the rule for such small entities; (3) the 
use of performance rather than design standards; and (4) an exemption 
from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for such small 
entities.''
    The FNPRM also takes the step of outlining an alternative mechanism 
that would allow a provider to retain its funding if it provides 
comparable service in a nonduplicate-support area, as well as consider 
alternative approaches from small and other entities on how best to 
achieve an outcome that dovetails both the Commission's policy goals 
and the minimization of substantial economic impact to small entities.

III. Ordering Clauses

    It is further ordered that, pursuant to the authority contained in 
sections 4(i), 201, 205, 214, 254, 303(r), and 403 of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 201, 205, 
214, 254, 303(r), 403, and Sec. Sec.  1.1 and 1.421 of the Commission's 
rules, 47 CFR 1.1, 1.421, the FNPRM is adopted. The FNPRM will be 
effective upon publication in the Federal Register, with comment dates 
indicated therein.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary, Office of the Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2024-28170 Filed 12-3-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P