RLECs Wary of Possible FCC Changes to USF Model Criteria; Alaska Telcos Cite Costs
Midwest RLECs voiced concern the FCC may alter model-based USF subsidy criteria for rate-of-return carriers to exclude many entities, while Alaska carriers cited fiber and middle-mile cost challenges. Eleven rural telcos from Minnesota, Wisconsin and Iowa said they intend by…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Communications Daily is required reading for senior executives at top telecom corporations, law firms, lobbying organizations, associations and government agencies (including the FCC). Join them today!
Nov. 1 to opt into subsidy support derived from a broadband Alternative Connect America Cost Model (ACAM). The companies "were both surprised and concerned" with language in an Aug. 3 Wireline Bureau public notice (see 1608030049) "indicating that it might 'prioritize' among electing carriers on the basis of one or more of three different potential criteria (percentage of locations lacking 10/1 Mbps, absolute number of locations lacking 10/1 and/or average cost per location)," said a filing from the group Friday in docket 10-90 on a meeting with an aide to Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel. The rural telcos are concerned potential FCC changes, probably after Nov. 1, could "significantly decrease the number of RLECs eligible to participate in the ACAM Path." The possibility some carriers might be excluded would be "an arbitrary and unfair change" of rules "in the middle of the process," they said. In a Monday filing, representatives of GVNW Consulting and Arctic Slope Telephone Association Cooperative met separately with aides to Chairman Tom Wheeler, Commissioner Mike O'Rielly and Rosenworcel about an FCC order adopting a modified "Alaska Plan" for rate-of-return and wireless carrier broadband support (see 1608310067). While lauding the order, the RLEC representatives said fiber deployment costs were expected to rise with demand, and small carriers would be competing with large carriers for contractors, crews and equipment. "Middle mile is the step after the implementation is initiated for the consensus Alaska Plan that relates to the last mile costs," said the GVNW filing. "If last mile issues are not adequately addressed for Alaska, any middle mile debate is moot. We provided an update from the nearly completed Alaska Network Services (ANS) analysis that revealed that the cost of extending the middle mile network across Alaska exceeds $2 billion."