80238 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 221 / Friday, November 17, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

cannot guarantee that we will be able to 

do so. 

Background 

The proposed rule was published on 

September 8, 2023 (88 FR 62025), with 

a 60-day comment period closing on 

November 7, 2023. Since publication, 

the BLM has received requests for 

extension of the comment period on the 

proposed rule. The BLM previously 

extended the comment period to 

November 17, 2023 (88 FR 72985). The 

BLM has determined that it is 

appropriate to further extend the 

comment period for the docket until 

December 7, 2023, to allow for 

additional public comment. 

Steven H. Feldgus, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary, Land and 

Minerals Management. 

[FR Doc. 2023–25486 Filed 11–16–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4331–27–P 

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 fcc504@fcc.gov 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 

Rebekah.Douglas@fcc.gov or (202) 418– 

7931 or Matt Warner, Competition and 

Infrastructure Policy Division, Wireless 

Telecommunications Bureau, at 

Matthew.Warner@fcc.gov 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 

§ 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 governmentto-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 decisionmaking 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. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 221 / Friday, November 17, 2023 / Proposed Rules 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
80240 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 221 / Friday, November 17, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

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 broadbandserviceable 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 highquality, 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 221 / Friday, November 17, 2023 / Proposed Rules 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 directto-home satellite service. These satellite 

providers argue their service is no 

longer ‘‘expensive’’ or ‘‘performancelimiting,’’ and just as reliable, if not 

more reliable than traditional fiberbased 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 nonterrestrial 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, 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
80242 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 221 / Friday, November 17, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

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 realworld 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-ofreturn 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 ProductChained 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? 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 221 / Friday, November 17, 2023 / Proposed Rules 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-ofreturn 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 lowincome 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 Crosssector 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
80244 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 221 / Friday, November 17, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

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 carriersubmitted 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 oneyear 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? 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 221 / Friday, November 17, 2023 / Proposed Rules 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
80246 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 221 / Friday, November 17, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

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 invehicle 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-theground 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 likesized 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. Hex9s 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 hex9s that overlap any desired census 

boundary. Given that some census 

blocks are very large in Alaska, would 

a combination of census blocks and hex9s 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 ACSJuneau 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 § 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 221 / Friday, November 17, 2023 / Proposed Rules 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 tenyear 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 middlemile 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 mobileprovider 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, mostefficient 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? 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
80248 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 221 / Friday, November 17, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

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 mobileprovider 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 221 / Friday, November 17, 2023 / Proposed Rules 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 hex9s (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 onetime 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 optin 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 fiveyear 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 forwardlooking 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
80250 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 221 / Friday, November 17, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

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 mobileprovider 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 terrestrialbased 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 mobilewireless 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 221 / Friday, November 17, 2023 / Proposed Rules 80251 

‘‘commercially available.’’ Mobileprovider 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
80252 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 221 / Friday, November 17, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

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 standalone 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 § 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 

§ 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 BEADfunded 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 221 / Friday, November 17, 2023 / Proposed Rules 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 selfreporting and drive tests to determine 

whether providers are meeting their 

commitments to Alaskans. Mobileprovider 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 tenyear 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 thirdparty 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-theground 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-theground 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 onthe-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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
80254 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 221 / Friday, November 17, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

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 mobileprovider 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 onthe-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 stateof-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, 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 221 / Friday, November 17, 2023 / Proposed Rules 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 highquality 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
80256 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 221 / Friday, November 17, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

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 mobileprovider 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 rateof-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 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 73 

[MB Docket No. 23–380; RM–11968; DA 23– 

1053; FR ID 184411] 

Television Broadcasting Services 

Missoula, Montana 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Video Division, Media 

Bureau (Bureau), has before it a petition 

for rulemaking filed August 16, 2023, by 

Sinclair Media Licensee, LLC (Petitioner 

or Sinclair), the licensee of KECI–TV, 

channel 13, Missoula, Montana (Station 

or KECI–TV). As discussed below, the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS