107196 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 250 / Tuesday, December 31, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 54 

[WC Docket Nos. 10–90, 23–328, 16–271, 

14–58, 09–197; WT Docket No. 10–208; FCC 

24–116; FR ID 266277] 

Connect America Fund, Alaska 

Connect Fund, Connect America 

Fund—Alaska Plan, ETC Annual 

Reports and Certifications, 

Telecommunications Carriers Eligible 

To Receive Universal Service Support, 

Universal Service Reform—Mobility 

Fund 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Communications 

Commission (Commission or FCC) has 

long recognized that rural and high-cost 

areas of Alaska are some of the hardest 

and most costly to serve in the country, 

with many residents lacking access to 

high-quality, affordable broadband that 

maintains parity with the technological 

advances that consumers living 

elsewhere in the nation enjoy. In this 

document, the Commission takes 

important and necessary steps to ensure 

continued support for the advancement 

of modern mobile and fixed broadband 

service in Alaska. 

DATES: Effective January 30, 2025. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

further information, please contact, 

Rebekah Douglas, Attorney Advisor, 

Telecommunications Access Policy 

Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, 

at Rebekah.Douglas@fcc.gov or 202– 

418–7400; Matthew Warner, Attorney 

Advisor, Competition and Infrastructure 

Policy Division, Wireless 

Telecommunications Bureau at 

Matthew.Warner@fcc.gov or 202–418– 

2419; or ACF@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Report 

and Order (Order) in WC Docket Nos. 

10–90, 23–328, 16–271, 14–58, 09–197 

and WT Docket No. 10–208; FCC 24– 

116, adopted on November 1, 2024, and 

released on November 4, 2024. The full 

text of this document is available at the 

following internet address: https://

www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-adoptsalaska-connect-fund-further-addressbroadband-needs. 

Synopsis 

I. Report and Order 

In the Order, the Commission takes 

important and necessary steps to ensure 

continued support for the advancement 

of modern mobile and fixed broadband 

service in Alaska. The Commission has 

long recognized that rural and high-cost 

areas of Alaska are some of the hardest 

and most costly to serve in the country, 

with many residents lacking access to 

high-quality, affordable broadband that 

maintains parity with the technological 

advances that consumers living 

elsewhere in the nation enjoy. In 2016, 

to address the unique needs of 

providing broadband service in Alaska, 

the Commission established the 10-year 

Alaska Plan to support the maintenance 

and deployment of voice and broadband 

fixed and mobile services. This Plan, 

along with other frozen support and 

model-based support, has resulted in 

substantially increased deployment of 

both fixed and mobile broadband 

services. As of the end of 2023, carriers 

in Alaska receiving high-cost support 

have reported deploying or upgrading 

fixed broadband service to more than 

96,000 locations, the majority of which 

are served at a speed of 25/3 Mbps or 

greater. Since January 2017, the number 

of Alaskans served by 4G LTE service or 

better by the Alaska Plan providers 

increased from roughly 33,000 to 98,000 

in areas eligible for support. 

While the original Alaska Plan and 

other Alaska support mechanisms have 

helped make significant progress in 

Alaska, many areas in the state remain 

unserved or underserved. The 

Commission can determine statewide, 

using the National Broadband Map, that 

about 21% of broadband-serviceable 

units lack at least 25/3 Mbps and about 

28% of broadband-serviceable units lack 

at least 100/20 Mbps fixed terrestrial 

service. An estimated 51,000 Alaskans 

still receive 3G service—an outdated 

technological standard—or worse. 

Historic levels of federal investments 

from the National Telecommunications 

and Information Administration’s 

(NTIA)’s Broadband Equity, Access, and 

Deployment (BEAD) Program will bring 

broadband to unserved and underserved 

locations throughout Alaska. 

Nonetheless, there will be an ongoing 

need for funding to maintain and 

operate the broadband networks built by 

the Universal Service Fund (USF) and 

BEAD as well as a need to support the 

deployment of mobile broadband which 

is not being funded through BEAD. 

Recognizing the importance of 

addressing current broadband funding 

concerns and the long-term broadband 

needs of Alaskan households in a 

rapidly changing funding environment, 

today the Commission moves forward 

with establishing the Alaska Connect 

Fund program (the ‘‘Alaska Connect 

Fund’’ or ‘‘ACF’’) to provide ongoing 

and certain support to both mobile and 

fixed carriers receiving USF high-cost 

support in Alaska through 2034, with 

increased support amounts that reflect 

the transition to higher speed service 

goals for the ACF. With ACF, the 

Commission also applies lessons 

learned from its current Alaska support 

programs and ensure high-cost support 

complements other federal funding 

programs. 

The support needs and landscape for 

mobile and fixed services in Alaska are 

different. Therefore, as the Commission 

did with the original Alaska Plan, it 

establishes separate mechanisms for 

mobile and fixed providers, with each 

mechanism tailored to the needs of the 

supported services. On the fixed side, 

the Commission’s support and 

broadband service goals will be 

materially affected by, and are intended 

to be complementary to, the BEAD 

awards, as well as other federal 

broadband infrastructure funding. The 

Commission provides a period of 

transitional support (ACF Transition) 

for existing support recipients through 

2028 to allow time for network 

deployments funded by these programs 

to be completed or nearly completed. 

During the ACF Transition, carriers will 

be responsible for maintaining the same 

level of service and meeting any 

deployment obligations they are 

committed to under the Commission’s 

Alaska Plan, Alaska Communications 

Systems (ACS), and Alternative Connect 

America Cost Model (A–CAM) 

programs. Following the ACF 

Transition, beginning January 1, 2029, 

the Commission establishes the 

framework for the Alaska Connect Fund 

Fixed services program (Fixed ACF) to 

provide fixed service providers ongoing 

technology-neutral support through the 

end of 2034, focused on supporting the 

maintenance and operation of 

broadband and voice capable networks 

in Alaska. Because a full picture of fixed 

broadband deployment will not be clear 

until BEAD and other federal funding is 

awarded, the Commission incorporates 

sufficient flexibility into Fixed ACF to 

evaluate and address future deployment 

needs. This two-phased approach will 

allow for continued and certain support 

for existing USF participants for a set 

period, while allowing the Commission 

to develop a complete picture of how 

the BEAD program and other federal 

network deployment funding will be 

allocated in Alaska to ensure that the 

Fixed ACF program complements these 

programs most effectively for the benefit 

of Alaskan consumers. The Commission 

also adopts phased down high-cost 

support for any current recipient that is 

authorized to receive less support 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 250 / Tuesday, December 31, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 107197 

during Fixed ACF than during ACF 

Transition. 

While the Order provides a 

framework for Fixed ACF, the 

Commission delegates several 

requirements to the Wireline 

Competition Bureau (WCB) to resolve 

through an opportunity for public notice 

and comment, including developing a 

process of accepting offers for support, 

providing guidance on how eligible 

carriers can participate in the program, 

determining eligible locations, 

allocating support for eligible locations, 

and determining whether support for 

new deployment is necessary, including 

whether a budget adjustment is in the 

public interest. The Commission 

delegates to WCB authority to determine 

whether any adjustments to the public 

interest obligations, including any 

updates to the methodology for the 

Alaska-specific benchmark, are in the 

public interest. The Commission also 

delegates authority to WCB to determine 

whether additional accountability and 

oversight measures, including 

certifications, reporting requirements or 

compliance measures are necessary for 

Fixed ACF and any phase-down support 

recipients. 

On the mobile side, because BEAD 

does not explicitly fund mobile 

deployments, the Alaska Connect Fund 

has an important role to play in 

ensuring Alaskans have access to 

reliable, advanced mobile service, 

particularly in upgrading networks to 

5G and encouraging deployment to 

unserved and underserved areas. As 

with fixed service, the Commission 

adopts a two-phase approach for mobile 

service that balances the importance of 

giving mobile providers certainty of 

funding in certain areas to help meet its 

goals of 5G deployment, with the need 

to ensure funding is not being targeted 

to last generation technologies (e.g., 2G 

and 3G) but rather is targeted to areas 

where it is needed the most and to 

address concerns of duplicate support. 

The framework the Commission adopts 

for mobile support relies on the 

improved mobile coverage data obtained 

in the Broadband Data Collection (BDC), 

which is reflected on the Commission’s 

National Broadband Map and which 

provides it with the most 

comprehensive picture to date about 

where mobile broadband service is and 

is not available across the country, 

including Alaska. Overall, the 

Commission extends support for a set 

period for mobile providers that: (1) 

participated in the Alaska Plan and (2) 

choose to opt into the Alaska Connect 

Fund, subject to conditions set forth in 

this document. The terms and goal 

speeds for mobile support under the 

Alaska Connect Fund will be based on 

whether an eligible area has a single or 

multiple subsidized providers. For 

eligible areas where there is only one 

subsidized provider (single-support 

areas), the current provider will 

continue receiving support through the 

end of 2034 and will be expected to 

enter into a new performance plan with 

5G service where technically and 

financially feasible. For eligible areas 

with multiple subsidized providers 

(duplicate-support areas), the 

Commission adopts a two-phased 

approach to resolve duplicative support: 

(1) an Alaska Connect Fund Mobile 

Phase I (ACF Mobile Phase I) that 

extends support for the mobile 

providers receiving support in these 

duplicate-support areas under the 

current Alaska Plan until December 31, 

2029; and (2) an Alaska Connect Fund 

Mobile Phase II (ACF Mobile Phase II) 

that would provide a single provider in 

those areas with support through the 

end of 2034. The Commission delegates 

authority to the Wireless 

Telecommunications Bureau (WTB) to 

implement and administer various 

components of the mobile portion of the 

Alaska Connect Fund. For example, the 

Commission delegates authority to WTB 

to review and approve performance 

plans for mobile ACF support. The 

Commission also delegates authority to 

WTB in coordination with the Office of 

Economics and Analytics (OEA) to 

develop and publish a map of areas 

eligible and ineligible to receive ACF 

mobile support. The Commission also 

delegates authority to WTB to 

implement accountability and oversight 

measures for mobile-support recipients. 

In the following, the Commission 

establishes separate approaches for the 

Alaska fixed and mobile markets to 

address the differing circumstances in 

each. However, these two sectors share 

certain common aspects. Before 

explaining the details of the 

Commission’s revised fixed and mobile 

mechanisms, it addresses the eligible 

telecommunications carrier (ETC) 

requirements and the Commission’s 

revised budget. 

Consistent with the 1996 

Communications Act and the 

Commission’s long-standing rules for 

the high-cost program, all Alaska 

Connect Fund recipients must be 

designated as an ETC before receiving 

high-cost support from either Fixed ACF 

or Mobile ACF. ETC status is mandated 

by the Communications Act and is a 

hallmark statutory requirement of the 

USF high-cost program, serving as an 

important check on reliability and 

accountability for consumers. 

In the Alaska Connect Fund Notice, 

88 FR 80238, November 17, 2023, the 

Commission sought comment on 

eligibility for Alaska Connect Fund 

support. Some commenters suggest 

eliminating the requirement to obtain 

ETC designation, citing difficulties 

obtaining ETC status and other 

programs that are not subject to the ETC 

statutory rules. The Alaska Rural ISP 

Coalition (ARIC) suggests that the 

Commission, instead, impose alternative 

requirements ‘‘ensuring a level of 

responsibility appropriate for Alaska 

Connect eligibility.’’ However, the 

Commission agrees with commenters 

that, consistent with the 

Communications Act and the 

Commission’s longstanding practice for 

the high-cost program, an Alaska 

Connect Fund support recipient must be 

designated as an ETC before receiving 

high-cost support. These commenters 

properly recognize that the statutory 

provisions of the Communications Act 

mandate the Commission only provide 

universal service high-cost support to 

carriers with ETC status. Alaska 

Telecom Association (ATA) and NTCAThe Rural Broadband Association 

(NTCA) also point to the oversight 

ability of the Regulatory Commission of 

Alaska (RCA) and the Commission as an 

effective consumer protection of service 

standards and quality. The Commission 

recognizes that becoming an ETC carries 

with it certain obligations, such as a 

requirement to provision voice service, 

which is not a business that all 

broadband providers in Alaska are 

engaged in providing. However, the 

Commission agrees with Alaska Power 

and Telephone that voice service 

remains critical to health and safety, 

particularly in Alaska, and is a core 

element of universal service. Moreover, 

the Commission notes that in Alaska, 

the RCA is the governing body that 

adjudicates the process and designates 

carriers as ETCs in their service 

territories, and without notice from the 

State that it is declining its jurisdiction, 

the Commission does not have authority 

to designate ETC status for carriers in 

Alaska. 

Therefore, the Commission requires 

that any ACF recipient must be an ETC 

before it can receive support. Carriers 

currently receiving support will already 

have obtained ETC designation. Any 

provider awarded federal infrastructure 

support through BEAD or other 

programs that is not already an ETC, 

however, will be required to become an 

ETC and provide certification and 

evidence of its designation to WCB and 

WTB (together ‘‘the Bureaus’’) in order 

to receive ACF support. The framework 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2
107198 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 250 / Tuesday, December 31, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

the Commission establishes in this 

document provides time for these 

providers to seek ETC designations. The 

Commission directs WCB to provide 

guidance on appropriate deadlines by 

which providers must obtain an ETC 

designation, and whether election of 

Fixed ACF support will be conditioned 

on having already obtained ETC 

designation or whether a period of time 

will be allowed following acceptance to 

obtain ETC designation. In the 

concurrently adopted Further Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM), the 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

ACF Mobile Phase II should allow any 

Alaska ETC to participate in the 

proposed competitive mechanism 

intended to resolve duplicative support, 

including those that are not currently 

receiving support under the Alaska 

Plan. Even if the Commission expands 

mobile support to include carriers that 

are not current Alaska Plan support 

recipients, it reiterates that mobile 

providers must receive ETC designation 

from the RCA before they are eligible to 

participate in the competitive process in 

ACF Mobile Phase II duplicate-support 

areas. 

Some Tribal organizations 

commented about a need for a 

‘‘streamlined’’ or special process for 

Tribal entities seeking ETC status in 

Alaska that recognizes Tribal 

sovereignty. The Commission notes that 

in the 2000 Tribal Order, 65 FR 47883, 

August 4, 2000, it established a process 

tailored specifically to carriers serving 

Tribal lands, whereby a carrier may seek 

ETC designation directly from the 

Commission. The Tribal Access 

Coalition commented that a Tribal 

entity should not have to partner with 

an ETC to obtain high-cost support, and 

NTTA argued that the Commission 

should either automatically grant ETC 

status or create an expedited process for 

ETC designation for new, non-ILEC 

carriers in Alaska that are serving Tribal 

Nations and Tribal Lands receiving 

deployment funding through other state 

and federal programs. The Commission 

remains committed to making advanced 

voice and broadband service available to 

all consumers in Alaska. As explained 

in this document, ETC designation is a 

statutory requirement, and the RCA has 

designation authority and providers are 

subject to the RCA’s designation 

process. Therefore, the Commission 

does not require a different standard for 

carriers serving Tribal lands. However, 

the Commission will continue to 

explore whether its authority affords us 

any additional opportunities for 

ensuring that a Tribally owned carrier in 

Alaska that is able to meet the 

requirements for ETC designation is able 

to obtain that status and participate in 

the program. The Commission will 

prepare guides and resources and 

conduct outreach to help inform Tribal 

providers about the ETC designation 

process. The Commission directs the 

Bureaus, in conjunction with the Office 

of Native Affairs and Policy, to inquire 

further regarding the experience of 

Tribally owned and operated carriers in 

Alaska. 

The Commission next concludes that 

an increase in support, starting January 

1, 2025, is warranted for all current 

recipients of high-cost fixed and mobile 

support in Alaska. In the Alaska 

Connect Fund Notice, the Commission 

asked about an appropriate budget for 

the Alaska Connect Fund that would 

provide support that is sufficient to 

achieve the Commission’s goals while 

not burdening consumers. The 

Commission inquired about the size of 

a budget that would be necessary to 

support continuity of service in areas 

already built out. The Commission also 

asked whether it was appropriate for it 

to increase for inflation the current 

budget of existing, Alaska focused highcost programs. Further, the Commission 

sought comment on how it should 

allocate support among the mobile 

participants in the Alaska Connect Fund 

and ‘‘how to provide sufficient support 

amounts to achieve the goals of 

encouraging secure mobile service 

deployment, while ensuring prudent 

use of universal service funds.’’ 

The current support budget for fixed 

carriers in Alaska is $82.8 million per 

year, which includes the combined 

budget for frozen fixed service in the 

Alaska Plan Order, 81 FR 69696, 

October 7, 2016, the ACS Order, 81 FR 

83706, November 22, 2016, and the two 

Alaska recipients of A–CAM support. 

For mobile recipients, the Alaska Plan 

Order froze mobile support at 2011 

levels in exchange for improved mobile 

services in Alaska, amounting to $739 

million (or $73.9 million annually) in 

frozen support to the eight mobile 

providers of the Alaska Plan over a tenyear period. In seeking comment on the 

budget in the concurrently adopted 

FNPRM, the Commission observed in 

the Alaska Connect Fund Notice that 

mobile support levels in the Alaska Plan 

were set by the identical support rule, 

which based support for mobile 

competitive ETCs on the costs of 

wireline voice providers. 

Many commenters supported an 

adjusted budget based on the 

inflationary pressures felt throughout 

Alaska since the current high-cost 

support mechanisms began. In ATA’s 

request to renew the Alaska Plan for 

another 10 years, it asks for an increase 

in support to reflect an inflationary 

adjustment since the beginning of the 

Alaska Plan, as well as an annual budget 

update. ATA provides examples of the 

increase in costs that providers have 

faced to deploy and maintain their 

networks during the course of the 

Alaska Plan and argues that an 

inflationary increase is necessary and 

appropriate to adjust to the increase in 

costs. ACS points out that frozen 

support, calculated based on the 

embedded costs of a voice-only 

network, bears no relationship to the 

costs of deploying high-speed 

broadband networks. Copper Valley 

Wireless notes that its wireless costs 

have increased by 141% since the start 

of the Alaska Plan. GCI Communication 

Corp. (GCI) has also submitted a cost 

study to demonstrate that 5G–NR 

coverage to all Broadband Serviceable 

Locations (BSLs) in Alaska will require 

far more funding than the support 

currently disbursed pursuant to the 

Alaska Plan. 

Based on the Commission’s careful 

consideration of the record, it concludes 

that increasing support for both fixed 

and mobile services is warranted to 

better align support with anticipated 

increased network speeds that will be 

supported under the Alaska Connect 

Fund. For fixed service, as of 2029, the 

Commission set a speed goal of 100/20 

Mbps, which calls for an increase in 

support. The Commission does not 

change fixed service requirements now, 

and in setting a speed goal, it recognizes 

100/20 Mbps may not be feasible 

everywhere even with available 

government funding, thus making it 

necessary to provide flexibility to 

support lower speeds where 100/20 

Mbps is not feasible. Between now and 

the end of 2028, due to BEAD 

commitments and commitments from 

other broadband infrastructure funding, 

fixed providers will begin to build 

networks that meet higher service levels 

and may even begin providing service 

that meets higher service levels. In 

addition, there are non-BEAD eligible 

locations served under current high-cost 

programs that will benefit from this 

increase in support due to need to 

maintain these higher service levels. To 

provide a smooth ramp toward the 

provision of higher speed services with 

higher operating costs the Commission 

raises support levels now to support 

those costs. 

Likewise, for mobile service, the 

Commission increases support levels 

due to the higher service goals under the 

Alaska Connect Fund. Providers in 

single-support areas—which the 

Commission anticipates will be a 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 250 / Tuesday, December 31, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 107199 

substantial majority of the support 

areas—are expected to deploy 5G–NR 

throughout these areas, reaching 5G–NR 

at 35/3 Mbps, where technically and 

financially feasible, by December 31, 

2034. Mobile providers can begin 

making improvements toward this end 

immediately, even as they move 

towards their final commitments under 

the Alaska Plan. The Alaska Plan sought 

to have 4G LTE at 10/1 Mbps deployed 

by December 31, 2026, and some 

providers have committed to 

improvements beyond that standard. 

The Commission does not alter these 

commitments, but improvements 

exceeding an Alaska Plan provider’s 

final commitments will count towards 

meeting its lower commitments. For 

example, where a provider deploys 5G– 

NR before the end of the Alaska Plan, it 

can count towards the Alaska Plan 

provider’s 4G LTE or lower technology 

commitments (but the Commission 

notes that providers still must meet the 

minimum speed requirements in their 

Alaska Plan commitments); similarly, if 

a provider deploys higher speeds as it 

works toward Alaska Connect Fund 

obligations, those can count toward its 

lower speed commitments under the 

Alaska Plan. Because the Commission 

anticipates that mobile providers will 

begin working towards these higher 

service goals immediately where 

technically and financially feasible, it 

provides commensurate support to 

achieve those ends. 

While the Commission increases the 

support amounts, it declines to adjust 

the budget or support amounts in 

Alaska in response to inflationary 

pressures. While increases in costs for 

equipment, transportation, fuel for 

equipment, and staff may well have 

grown beyond those predicted at the 

time current support mechanisms were 

initiated, those same pressures are felt 

elsewhere. Non-Alaska A–CAM carriers 

have not received increases for inflation 

(i.e., the Commission did not adjust the 

model inputs for Enhanced Alternative 

Connect America Cost Model (Enhanced 

A–CAM) to account for inflation or 

otherwise increase support for carriers 

staying on A–CAM). Other carriers 

receiving frozen support, similar to 

ACS, were then put on model-based 

support or subject to a competitive 

mechanism (e.g. price cap carriers, 

Puerto Rico Telephone Company, and 

Viya). Further, the Commission has 

been reluctant to adjust support for 

inflation in other contexts, such as its 

recent order regarding rates for 

incarcerated persons. 

For both fixed and wireless services, 

the Commission directs the Universal 

Service Administrative Company 

(USAC or the Administrator) to make a 

one-time 30% adjustment of current 

support amounts for recipients of USF 

high-cost support in Alaska, to begin 

January 1, 2025. The Commission finds 

this increase in support is sufficient to 

meet the higher service speeds under 

the ACF, while also ensuring prudent 

use of universal service funds. Given 

that the Commission’s rationale for 

increasing support is not inflationbased, it declines to make an adjustment 

for inflation to determine the increased 

support amount. 

The amount of fixed Alaska Plan, ACS 

Order, and A–CAM high-cost support 

disbursed in Alaska in 2025, noted as 

$82.8 million annually above, adjusted 

30%, will be approximately $107.6 

million annually through December 

2028. The 30% increase for wireless 

service results in a total budget of 

approximately $96 million annually. 

While the Commission increases mobile 

support for Alaska providers, at this 

time, it declines to provide a 30% 

increase to the $162,270,272 otherwise 

allocated to the unserved areas mobile 

reverse auction. There is no support in 

the record for an increase to this 

amount. Moreover, historically 

competitive mechanisms have resulted 

in support amounts below the allocated 

budget, ensuring a more efficient use of 

limited funding. 

Given the increased support amount 

the Commission is providing, and in 

recognition of the value of certainty and 

predictability, it declines to make 

annual increases for inflation or any 

other reasons. As the Commission 

explained in the Enhanced A–CAM 

Order, 88 FR 55918, August 17, 2023, 

when rejecting annual increases for 

inflation, ‘‘[i]nflation adjustments 

would undermine the benefits of 

budgetary certainty provided by fixed, 

model-based support, including the 

ability to control the future impact of 

the mechanism on the contribution 

factor.’’ Therefore, the Commission 

finds that annual budgetary certainty is 

paramount to the unpredictability of an 

annual adjustment, and it declines to 

make annual increases for inflation or 

any other reasons. However, the 

Commission directs WCB to continue to 

monitor support levels under the Alaska 

Connect Fund to ensure they are 

furthering universal service goals in 

Alaska. 

The goal of the Alaska Connect Fund 

for fixed services is to encourage and 

sustain the availability of affordable 

voice and broadband services to all 

Alaskans. Adopting a budget and the 

framework for two phases of the Alaska 

Connect Fund for fixed services will 

first, in ACF Transition, provide the 

certainty of continued USF high-cost 

support for Alaska carriers while new 

networks are constructed and will, with 

Fixed ACF, establish a mechanism to 

fund those networks and existing ones 

for a period thereafter. The Commission 

anticipates that the broadband 

deployment already completed with 

USF funding, as well as the buildout 

that will occur under BEAD and other 

federal and state programs, will result in 

making broadband available to all or 

almost all broadband serviceable 

locations in Alaska. As such, ACF 

Transition and Fixed ACF will prioritize 

support for ongoing maintenance and 

operations to complement federal 

support directed for building 

infrastructure and new deployment. 

Nonetheless, as explained in the 

following, in the event that some areas 

are left unserved, the Commission 

maintains the flexibility for Fixed ACF 

to address these areas, and it delegates 

to the WCB the authority to consider the 

needs of any such areas. 

At the outset, the Commission 

addresses the applicability of the 

Broadband DATA Act, which requires 

that, after the creation of the BSL Fabric 

and Broadband Maps, it uses those data 

‘‘when making any new award of 

funding with respect to the deployment 

of broadband internet access.’’ ACF 

Transition is an extension of existing 

USF support and related obligations and 

is only supporting already-authorized 

broadband deployment. As the purpose 

of the ACF Transition support is to 

sustain existing networks and 

authorized obligations, the Commission 

concludes it is not a new award of 

funding and does not trigger the 

requirements of the Broadband DATA 

Act. At the same time, the framework 

the Commission adopts for Fixed ACF 

likewise prioritizes support for 

maintaining and sustaining existing 

(including networks that are in the 

process of and will be deployed under 

BEAD and other federal funding) voice 

and broadband networks. However, 

since the Commission delegates, in the 

following, to WCB the responsibility to 

complete certain requirements of Fixed 

ACF, to the extent that any Fixed ACF 

support is awarded or authorized for the 

deployment of broadband networks, 

pursuant to that delegated authority, 

Commission staff shall use the National 

Broadband Map and its constituent 

parts (BSL Fabric and fixed-broadband 

availability data collected as part of the 

BDC), and Broadband Funding Map. 

The Commission initiates the ACF 

Transition by increasing annual support 

amounts, for reasons discussed in this 

document, and extending certain 

existing Alaska carrier USF support 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2
107200 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 250 / Tuesday, December 31, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

terms. During this ACF Transition, the 

Commission aligns the support terms for 

current recipients of fixed services 

support in Alaska so that all support 

terms during the ACF Transition end in 

2028. Thus, ACS’s support term is 

extended from the end of 2025 to 2028, 

the support term for all Alaska Plan 

carriers is extended from the end of 

2026 to the end of 2028, and the support 

term for the two Alaska A–CAM I 

carriers continues to the end of 2028. A 

single, harmonized end date for current 

high-cost fixed support programs in 

Alaska is necessary: (1) to allow time for 

award of funding through BEAD and 

other infrastructure projects; (2) to 

holistically assess the funding 

landscape in Alaska for all service 

providers and consumers after these 

funds are awarded; (3) to avoid 

duplicate support; and (4) to ease the 

administrative burden of coordinating 

provider obligations and disbursements 

going forward. All carriers continuing to 

receive support in ACF Transition 

remain subject to their current public 

interest obligations, including 

deployment obligations and 

performance testing, and must maintain 

service through the end of ACF 

Transition on December 31, 2028. 

Support Terms. The Commission 

establishes a uniform conclusion date of 

December 31, 2028 for the ACF 

Transition support terms of all current 

recipients of high-cost fixed services 

support in Alaska to provide certainty 

and enable a smooth transition to Fixed 

ACF. Currently, the obligations and 

support conclude for ACS in 2025, the 

Alaska Plan in 2026, and A–CAM in 

2028. Support recipients of these 

programs have public service 

obligations tailored to the specific 

programs through which they are 

receiving support, but these disparate 

support timelines complicate the 

initiation of a new, unified support 

program for Alaska. Commenters 

generally agreed that a single high-cost 

program for Alaska would be desirable, 

although they did not provide 

suggestions for aligning the different 

existing timelines. Several commenters 

emphasized the need for adopting 

solutions for Alaska support as soon as 

practical. In its petition, ATA suggested 

a new support structure should be 

adopted before the current programs 

conclude. Additionally, the Alaska 

Broadband Office (ABO) noted that 

high-cost support is needed to provide 

both sustainability and certainty as well 

as supporting affordability during the 

period while the BEAD Program is 

implemented. 

The Commission agrees with 

commenters that an extension of current 

support will provide certainty for 

current support recipients and will 

ensure continuity of service for Alaskan 

consumers. The Commission also finds 

that establishing clear timelines both for 

the availability of current support 

streams and for a support mechanism to 

be adopted after BEAD funding is 

awarded will best support its goals in 

Alaska as well as support carriers 

providing service in Alaska in planning 

projects and expenditures for the next 

several years. Finally, the Commission 

finds that a uniform support term (until 

the end of 2028) is appropriate because 

it allows all high-cost support programs 

in Alaska to reach their end at the same 

time, thereby reducing complexity and 

uncertainty that could arise in the 

absence of a uniform date. 

Accountability and Oversight. During 

the ACF Transition, support recipients 

must continue to meet all public interest 

requirements established for the 

program from which they have been 

receiving funds, including completing 

any buildout obligations at the required 

performance levels by the dates 

previously established and meeting all 

other existing public interest 

obligations. All ACF Transition support 

recipients will remain obligated to make 

certifications and filings as required 

under current rules and must adhere to 

current record retention requirements. 

Carriers must continue any established 

performance testing. Given that BEAD 

and other federal programs will support 

broadband construction and that 

support has not yet been awarded, the 

Commission will not require broadband 

deployment beyond existing 

commitments as a condition of receiving 

support for fixed services during the 

ACF Transition. 

The Commission emphasizes the ACF 

Transition is intended to provide a 

smooth transition to a new support 

mechanism and in no way relieves 

carriers of their existing obligations. As 

noted in this document, A–CAM 

carriers in Alaska, Alaska Plan carriers, 

and ACS will be subject to support 

recovery for failure to meet their 

deployment milestones as provided 

under the Commission’s existing rules. 

Similarly, carriers that receive support 

during ACF Transition will be subject to 

recovery of support for failure to meet 

performance testing standards both 

under their existing programs and on an 

annual basis after the original end date 

of their current programs. Thus, A–CAM 

carriers will see no change in their 

performance testing obligations, as those 

obligations already extend through 

2028. However, ACS and Alaska Plan 

carriers will be subject to performance 

testing on existing deployment on an 

annual basis through December 31, 2028 

which is after the end of their current 

programs. For example, an Alaska Plan 

carrier receiving support during ACF 

Transition will be subject to support 

recovery if it fails to meet its 

performance testing standards at the end 

of 2026. In addition, that same carrier 

will be subject to support recovery if it 

fails to meet performance testing 

standards at the end of 2028. Carriers 

will also be required to continue the 

filing of middle-mile maps and 

broadband service reporting. Carriers 

that were only obligated to maintain 

service under the Alaska Plan will 

continue to be subject to biennial 

review. 

With Fixed ACF beginning in January 

2029, the Commission continues 

targeted Alaska mechanisms that 

provide predictability for continued 

USF high-cost support through 2034 

and account for existing and new 

broadband deployment funding 

programs. Current USF programs 

combined with BEAD and other federal 

and state broadband funding should 

together result in broadband 

deployment to all or almost all unserved 

or underserved broadband serviceable 

locations. Fixed ACF is intended to be 

a technology neutral program and to 

complement network deployment 

funding by providing operational and 

maintenance support for carriers that 

have been or will be awarded federal or 

state government infrastructure support 

for the deployment of voice and 

broadband service in Alaska. The 

Commission does this to help sustain 

these networks into the future and bring 

Alaska consumers closer to enjoying the 

same modern telecommunications as 

those available to consumers in the rest 

of the country. 

As discussed in the Alaska Connect 

Fund Notice, there have been and 

continue to be significant changes to the 

broadband landscape in Alaska. 

Specifically, over $1 billion in federal 

BEAD funding will be allocated to 

providers in Alaska, which has the 

potential to change the landscape of 

advanced telecommunications service 

in Alaska dramatically. The 

Commission would not be meeting its 

responsibilities as stewards of the USF 

if it allocated support to specific carriers 

without considering the implications of 

BEAD awards, as well as other federal 

broadband funding. The Commission 

agrees with NTCA that support 

provided through the Alaska Connect 

Fund should be informed by and build 

upon the progress of previous support 

mechanisms and focus on keeping 

services available to the consumer, and 

therefore it must take into account 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 250 / Tuesday, December 31, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 107201 

BEAD funding awards, which are 

expected to be made in fall next year. 

As such, while the Commission 

determines a total budget amount of 

annual support for Fixed ACF, it 

delegates to WCB the authority to 

determine, after an opportunity for 

public notice and comment, how Fixed 

ACF support shall be allocated among 

eligible locations. The Commission 

directs WCB to provide further guidance 

to carriers on the timing and process of 

electing Fixed ACF support in advance 

of the start of Fixed ACF support, taking 

into consideration BEAD and any other 

federal or state broadband funding 

allocations. 

Budget. The Commission adopts an 

annual budget of $107.6 million for 

Fixed ACF, approximately the same 

annual amount being authorized during 

the ACF Transition. The Commission 

finds that maintaining the same budget 

and adopting the Fixed ACF budget now 

provides entities interested in pursuing 

network deployment funding, through 

BEAD or other federal or state programs 

with certainty that USF high-cost 

support will continue to sustain the 

operation of the networks that carriers 

receive funding to build. ATA and other 

commenters encouraged the 

Commission to provide these assurances 

now, ahead of BEAD funding awards, 

and it finds a stated budget amount 

achieves that goal. During Fixed ACF, 

the Commission’s goal is to support the 

sustainability of government funded 

networks, which it expects will provide 

speeds of at least 100/20 Mbps, which 

is a higher speed standard than has been 

required to date for carriers currently 

receiving high-cost support in Alaska. 

The operating costs of supporting a 

higher capacity network, especially after 

accounting for current middle-mile 

costs in Alaska, are likely materially 

more expensive than lesser bandwidth 

services, and the Commission finds that 

maintaining the same increased budget 

as the ACF Transition, as discussed in 

this document, allows carriers to plan 

for operation at that level. Accordingly, 

the Commission finds that the budget it 

adopts is sufficient to help advance the 

goal of sustaining service at reasonably 

comparable rates and provide 

predictability while being mindful of 

the burdens on payers into the USF. 

Nevertheless, the Commission allows 

for flexibility in specific situations, as 

explained in the following, to support 

networks that cannot provide service at 

100/20 Mbps. The Commission declines 

to further adjust the budget at this time. 

Fixed ACF support will prioritize 

supporting the operations and 

maintenance of already-constructed 

networks over additional deployment, 

and it is premature to determine if any 

additional adjustments are warranted. 

The Commission expects that, with the 

delegation of authority it provides to 

WCB in the following, support will be 

carefully allocated to achieve the goals 

of Fixed ACF. Nonetheless, the 

Commission delegates authority to WCB 

to determine, after the opportunity for 

public notice and comment, whether 

any further budget adjustment, one-time 

or annual, is appropriate prior to the 

beginning of Fixed ACF. Specifically, 

WCB has the authority to increase the 

Fixed ACF budget by up to 15% of the 

annual budget on a one-time basis or 

annually if WCB determines that such 

an increase is in the public interest. 

Support Term and Timing. The 

Commission adopts a six-year term of 

support for Fixed ACF, which will begin 

January 1, 2029 and conclude on 

December 31, 2034. The Commission’s 

action in this document strikes the 

appropriate balance among providing 

predictability of support, its obligation 

to use support effectively, and the 

Congressional requirement to coordinate 

with other federal agencies that 

administer broadband deployment 

programs. ATA proposed that the 

Commission provide support through 

2034, and commenters generally agree 

on a 10-year term of support. The 

Commission has consistently provided 

high-cost support in 10-year terms, 

particularly in Alaska due to its unique 

work season, extended timelines, and 

generalized logistical challenges, and it 

finds the six-year term for Fixed ACF 

together with the four-year term of ACF 

Transition is an appropriate timeframe 

in this context. As explained above, 

extending support for ACF Transition 

through the end of 2028 allows all 

existing high-cost support programs in 

Alaska to reach their natural end at the 

same time. Additionally, by January 1, 

2029, the Commission will have the 

benefit of knowing how BEAD funding 

in Alaska is awarded, including which 

providers will be building in which 

areas and if any areas are being left 

unserved. The Commission agrees with 

commenters that argue it is important 

for them to consider the allocation of 

BEAD funding when extending USF 

support. The beginning of 2029 roughly 

corresponds to the expected timeline for 

when BEAD awardees will have 

deployed or will be finishing 

construction of the networks funded by 

that program. Additionally, USF highcost support recipients in Alaska will 

have already completed their existing 

deployment obligations. This 

information will allow WCB to allocate 

Fixed ACF support so as to avoid 

duplicative deployment funding while 

identifying any areas that are not yet 

funded. The Commission expects the 

majority of government funded 

networks in Alaska through currently 

existing programs will be built and 

available for consumer use by 2029, and 

it therefore finds it appropriate to 

provide USF support at that time for 

operations and ongoing maintenance. 

Accordingly, the Commission adopts 

this term now to provide clarity and 

predictability for carriers submitting 

applications for infrastructure support 

through BEAD or participating in other 

broadband infrastructure programs, and 

to allow carriers to proceed with 

confidence in planning and 

construction, knowing that USF highcost support will continue to be 

available once their networks are 

constructed. 

Eligible Carriers. In the Alaska 

Connect Fund Notice, the Commission 

sought comment on eligibility for 

participation in the program and 

information about ETCs in Alaska. In its 

comments, Alaska Remote Carrier 

Coalition (ARCC) introduced the 

concept of an Alaska Broadband 

Checklist, outlining several proposed 

eligibility and carrier requirements. 

ARCC also encouraged recognition of 

the varied and unique circumstances 

across the state of Alaska. Some 

commenters suggested only carriers 

currently receiving high-cost support in 

Alaska should be eligible for ACF 

support, while other commenters 

encouraged us to include new 

participants and carriers that have not 

previously received high-cost support in 

Alaska to date. 

The Commission directs WCB to make 

Fixed ACF support available for fixed 

services to ETCs in Alaska that receive 

or are awarded funding from federal or 

state government support programs to 

deploy networks capable of providing 

voice and broadband internet access 

service meeting the Commission’s 

public interest obligations to eligible 

locations. For example, a carrier that 

received funding for broadband 

deployment through programs such as, 

but not limited to, USF High-Cost, 

BEAD, the Department of Agriculture’s 

ReConnect program, or the NTIA’s 

Tribal Broadband Connectivity Program 

to deploy a network capable of 

providing broadband internet access 

service may be eligible for Fixed ACF 

support. In taking this approach, the 

Commission agrees with the 

commenters advocating to include new 

participants and carriers that have not 

received high-cost support in Alaska to 

date. The Commission recognizes there 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2
107202 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 250 / Tuesday, December 31, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

likely are or will be new providers in 

Alaskan communities due to other 

federal infrastructure funding. The 

Commission finds that providing the 

opportunity for these new participants 

in Alaska furthers its goal of making 

networks in Alaska sustainable into the 

future. The Commission directs WCB to 

use the Broadband Funding Map to 

assist in determining eligible carriers. 

Subject to the limitations discussed in 

the following, the Commission delegates 

authority to WCB to consider how to 

allocate Fixed ACF support among the 

eligible fixed service carriers in Alaska. 

The Commission also delegates 

authority to WCB to determine, after 

opportunity for public notice and 

comment, whether additional financial 

or other requirements for new entrants 

in Fixed ACF would be in the public 

interest. 

Intended Use of Support. Fixed ACF 

support shall be focused on supporting 

ongoing operations and maintenance of 

already-constructed voice and 

broadband-capable networks. The 

Commission finds that it is not 

necessary to allocate support for 

broadband infrastructure at this time 

given the historic investment of federal 

funding that has been directed for that 

purpose through BEAD and other 

programs and the expectation that this 

funding will result in planned 

deployment to all or almost all locations 

in Alaska. Commenters generally agree 

that support for ongoing operations and 

maintenance is essential to complement 

infrastructure deployment. The 

Commission agrees with NTCA that the 

mission of universal service extends 

beyond just building infrastructure and 

that high-cost support serves an 

important role in keeping services 

operational once a network is built. The 

intended use of support is not strictly 

for operating expenses as expenditures 

to maintain a network may be accounted 

for as capital expenses where 

appropriate, for instance, expenses 

incurred to replace network equipment. 

Like recipients of Alaska Plan and 

model-based support, Fixed ACF 

recipients may use support anywhere in 

their network to maintain their ability to 

offer service at the public interest 

standards in high-cost areas and will not 

be limited to using support only for lastmile infrastructure. For example, a 

recipient that operates its own middlemile networks may use support for the 

maintenance and operation of those 

portions of the network as well. The 

Commission finds that allowing 

recipients the flexibility to use Fixed 

ACF support in any area of their 

network allows high-cost support to be 

targeted to where it is needed most and 

to better ensure carriers can meet their 

public interest obligations. The 

Commission anticipates that this will 

also encourage the maintenance and 

operation of middle-mile networks in 

Alaska so that they can be utilized 

economically. 

Fixed ACF recipients, like all other 

ETCs, remain subject to limitations on 

the appropriate use of universal service 

support. The Commission has 

previously reminded ETCs of their 

statutory obligation to use high-cost 

support only for its intended purposes. 

These same principles apply here. To 

the extent the Commission or WCB 

revises the expectations for what 

constitutes expenditure of support for 

its intended purposes, recipients 

participating in Alaska Connect Fund 

will be subject to those new rules. 

While the Commission directs Fixed 

ACF support for maintaining and 

operating the network, it is cognizant 

that there may still be a need for 

deployment funding in Alaska and that 

any remaining unserved or underserved 

areas will be identified by 2029. 

Therefore, the Commission builds 

flexibility into Fixed ACF to address 

such needs at that time. The 

Commission delegates authority to WCB 

to determine, after an opportunity for 

public notice and comment, whether it 

is in the public interest to allocate any 

Fixed ACF support for additional 

broadband deployment after BEAD and 

other funding has been awarded, and if 

so, to determine the amount to be 

allocated. Should WCB decide that it is 

in the public interest, the Commission 

further delegates authority to WCB to 

determine, after an opportunity for 

public notice and comment, public 

interest obligations and a deployment 

timeline, including interim and final 

milestones, appropriate for the support 

provided and the nature of the 

deployment. While the Commission has 

considered arguments for allocating 

high-cost support in Alaska for 

infrastructure, it finds it is premature to 

do so prior to BEAD funding being 

awarded. If, however, WCB determines 

that authorizing support for deployment 

for Fixed ACF is in the public interest, 

WCB shall work within the Fixed ACF 

budget to determine how best to allocate 

support between operations and 

deployment. 

Eligible Locations and Support 

Amounts Per Location. The Commission 

delegates authority to WCB to 

determine, after an opportunity for 

public comment, which locations are 

eligible for Fixed ACF support for fixed 

services and how to allocate Fixed ACF 

support among eligible locations. WCB 

shall consider allocating Fixed ACF 

support based on the BSL categories 

developed by the ABO and may 

prioritize support based on the 

remoteness of the location. For example, 

using the June 2023 version of the 

Fabric, the ABO categorized all 

broadband serviceable locations in the 

state of Alaska based on whether they 

are: high-cost or non-high-cost (for 

purposes of the BEAD program), and 

whether they are on the fiber or road 

system, rural community, or noncommunity based. The Commission 

expects that Fixed ACF support will be 

most efficiently spent in noncommunity locations, High-Cost BSLs, 

and BSLs that are part of a rural 

community not on a fiber or road 

system. The Commission finds that 

locations that do not fall within those 

categories are likely to be in the more 

densely populated areas of Alaska like 

Anchorage and Fairbanks, where the 

business case for providing broadband 

service without subsidies is much 

stronger. The Commission recognizes 

that some commenters supported the 

allocation of support on a community 

basis and others identified communitybased projects. Nonetheless, the 

Commission finds that making a 

determination of eligible locations, 

ahead of BEAD awards, is premature. 

Therefore, the Commission delegates 

authority to WCB to determine, after 

opportunity for public notice and 

comment, the eligible locations and how 

to allocate support among them, and, as 

explained further in the following, the 

Commission delegates to WCB the 

flexibility to allocate support to carriers 

that may be providing broadband speeds 

below 100/20 Mbps. The Commission 

also directs WCB to avoid duplicate 

high-cost support by authorizing no 

more than one carrier to receive Fixed 

ACF support for fixed services for each 

eligible location. 

Public Interest Obligations. The 

Commission adopts general parameters 

and priorities for the public interest 

obligations applicable to Fixed ACF 

recipients. The Commission agrees with 

commenters that reasonable minimum 

service standards help provide 

consumers with a level of service that 

allows for meaningful personal and 

community engagement, and that this is 

only increasingly important as it moves 

into further generations. The 

Commission delegates authority to WCB 

to determine, after opportunity for 

public notice and comment, whether 

any changes are necessary based on the 

specific determinations that will be 

made for eligibility and allocation of 

Fixed ACF eligible areas and support 

allocation. 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 250 / Tuesday, December 31, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 107203 

Speed. The Commission adopts a goal 

of a service speed of at least 100/20 

Mbps. The Commission recently 

increased the definition for advanced 

service to the provision of broadband 

service at a speed of 100/20 Mbps, and 

arrived at this benchmark after taking 

into consideration, among other things, 

the speed goals for BEAD, and other 

federal and state broadband deployment 

programs. Commenters argue that 

Alaska lags behind the rest of the 

country in higher-speed options 

specifically because previous support 

did not prioritize higher speeds. Several 

commenters supported a minimum 

speed requirement of 100/20 Mbps. 

Although ATA supports the speed 

benchmark generally, it expressed 

concern about requiring 100/20 Mbps at 

all locations. Additionally, ARCC 

encouraged the Commission to adopt a 

policy that considers issues that can 

arise with oversubscription and how 

that affects network performance in 

relation to speed. While the BEAD 

program’s principal focus is to deploy 

service with speeds of at least 100/20 

Mbps to all locations in the state, and 

other broadband deployment programs 

have the same speed requirement, the 

Commission recognizes and agree with 

the record that it also is in the public 

interest to provide flexibility in Alaska 

to tailor support for locations where, 

even with government funding, it has 

not been feasible to achieve 100/20 

Mbps service and remains that way after 

BEAD awards. Therefore, the 

Commission directs WCB to consider 

the best ways to meet the goal of 100/ 

20 Mbps broadband internet access 

service, and it delegates authority to 

WCB to determine, after an opportunity 

for notice and comment, where 

supporting slower broadband internet 

access speeds is consistent with section 

254 of Communications Act and with 

the Commission’s goal of providing 

operational and maintenance support 

for carriers that have been or will be 

awarded federal or state government 

infrastructure support for the 

deployment of networks capable of 

providing voice and broadband services 

in Alaska. 

Latency. The Commission adopts a 

roundtrip provider network latency goal 

of 100 ms or less (faster) for Fixed ACF 

recipients. The Commission disagrees 

with commenters that argue it should 

dismiss latency requirements. Latency 

standards have been adopted in several 

successful high-cost programs in Alaska, 

including the Alaska Plan Order, ACS 

Order and A–CAM Order, as well as in 

other geographically remote and noncontiguous areas. The Commission 

agrees with commenters reporting that 

latency is an important requirement that 

helps it gauge the quality of service and 

ensure that providers meet the modernday needs of consumers. Commenters 

also indicate that latency performance 

has improved substantially in recent 

years, such that 100 ms or less is 

generally achievable by all technologies. 

Nevertheless, at this stage, the 

Commission recognizes the importance 

of maintaining flexibility to tailor 

requirements in Alaska for locations 

where, even with government funding, 

the goal of 100 ms or less latency has 

not been feasible and remains that way 

after BEAD awards. Therefore, the 

Commission directs WCB to consider 

the best ways to meet the goal of 100 ms 

or less latency for Fixed ACF recipients, 

and it delegates authority to WCB to 

determine, after an opportunity for 

notice and comment, whether, and if so 

where supporting higher (slower) than 

100 ms latency may be consistent with 

section 254 of Communications Act and 

with the Commission’s goal of providing 

operational and maintenance support 

for carriers that have been or will be 

awarded federal or state government 

infrastructure support for the 

deployment of networks capable of 

providing voice and broadband services 

in Alaska. Therefore, Fixed ACF 

recipients will be required to certify that 

95 percent or more of all peak period 

measurements of network round-trip 

latency meet the latency standard set for 

the locations served. Fixed ACF 

recipients shall conduct their latency 

network testing consistent with the 

current requirements for network 

testing. 

Data Usage. Fixed ACF recipients will 

be required to offer a usage allowance 

that evolves over time to remain 

reasonably comparable to usage by 

subscribers in urban areas, as was 

required by the Alaska Plan. In the 

Alaska Connect Fund Notice, the 

Commission outlined the different 

current standards for Alaska high-cost 

providers and asked about tailoring the 

minimum data allowance for the Alaska 

Connect Fund. ARIC urged the 

Commission to remove the requirement 

as it incentivizes providers to set limits 

low and charge for additional data 

usage. Alaska Public Interest Research 

Group (AKPIRG) suggested the 

Commission establish caps on data 

overage charges to limit opportunistic 

pricing for data. Under the USF/ICC 

Transformation Order, 76 FR 73830, 

November 29, 2011, and subsequent 

orders, ETCs subject to broadband 

public interest obligations must provide 

broadband with usage allowances 

reasonably comparable to those 

available through comparable offerings 

in urban areas. There is no support in 

the record for holding Fixed ACF 

recipients to a different standard than 

other high-cost recipients, and the 

current standard ensures that carriers 

must offer a minimum usage of at least 

the national average. Therefore, Fixed 

ACF carriers will be required to certify 

that they offer a minimum usage 

allowance that reflects the average usage 

of a majority of consumers, as annually 

calculated and published by WCB and 

OEA. 

Satellite Backhaul Exception. In the 

Alaska Connect Fund Notice, the 

Commission sought comment on the 

continued need for a satellite backhaul 

exemption for speed, latency, and data 

usage standards. In the Alaska Plan 

Order, the Commission adopted an 

exemption from the speed, latency, and 

data usage standards for carriers that 

rely only on the use of satellite backhaul 

to deliver their service. This exemption 

was based on the premise that relying 

on satellite was performance-limiting 

and that satellite could not provide the 

same speeds as terrestrial backhaul. The 

Commission declines to adopt a general 

satellite backhaul exemption from the 

public interest obligations for Fixed 

ACF recipients. The Commission agrees 

with commenters stating that satellitebased technologies have evolved 

sufficiently in the last several years and 

are no longer ‘‘performance-limiting.’’ 

Given the developments in satellite 

technology, a blanket exemption does 

not advance the public interest of 

providing advanced broadband service 

for all consumers in Alaska. Further, the 

Commission finds that Fixed ACF 

support provided for the operation and 

maintenance of service presupposes that 

the service provided meets the public 

interest standards set, regardless of 

backhaul technology. Therefore, the 

Commission will no longer provide a 

blanket exemption to meeting the public 

interest obligations for Fixed ACF 

recipients that rely exclusively on 

satellite backhaul to provide service. 

Alaska Reasonably Comparable 

Rates—Broadband and Voice. The 

Commission requires recipients of Fixed 

ACF support, like all other recipients of 

USF high-cost support, to provide voice 

and broadband service at rates that are 

reasonably comparable to those offered 

in urban areas and make such 

certification annually. For voice service, 

ETCs are required to make an annual 

certification that the rates for their voice 

service are in compliance with the 

reasonable comparability benchmark. 

For broadband, an ETC has two options 

for demonstrating that its rates comply 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2
107204 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 250 / Tuesday, December 31, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

with this statutory requirement: 

certifying compliance with reasonable 

comparability benchmarks or certifying 

compliance that it offers the same or 

lower rates in rural areas as it does in 

urban areas. Due to the unique 

challenges in Alaska, the Commission 

will allow Fixed ACF recipients to 

comply with the Alaska-specific 

reasonable comparability broadband 

benchmarks established annually by the 

WCB and OEA. 

In the Alaska Connect Fund Notice, 

the Commission asked whether it 

should consider changes to the Alaskaspecific benchmarks. ARCC suggested 

that Alaska-specific benchmarks were 

important but advocated for waiving 

certain benchmarks for various carriers 

to avoid oversubscription and empty 

promises by service providers. ATA 

supports the continued use of Alaskaspecific approach, but did not propose 

detailed adjustments to the calculation. 

The Commission declines to revise the 

Alaska-specific benchmark calculation 

as it finds there is insufficient 

information at this time to justify a 

revision, and a full assessment of any 

necessary changes will be better made 

following BEAD allocation. 

Accordingly, the Commission delegates 

authority to WCB to determine whether 

the methodology for determining the 

Alaska-specific benchmark needs to be 

revisited prior the award of Fixed ACF 

support. 

Participation Process. The 

Commission delegates authority to WCB 

to determine a process whereby WCB 

makes an offer of Fixed ACF support, 

which eligible carriers must 

affirmatively accept prior to receiving 

support. The Commission directs WCB 

to adopt rules, after an opportunity for 

public notice and comment, and 

provide further guidance no later than 

twelve months before the start of Fixed 

ACF, that outlines how providers may 

participate in the program, how support 

will be allocated, the public interest 

obligations, and any other requirements 

for participation in Fixed ACF. The 

Commission delegates authority to WCB 

to collect any certifications or 

information it determines is necessary 

to help ensure eligible carriers will be 

able to meet obligations prior to being 

authorized for support, including 

certification of ETC designation and 

certifications of the category for each 

location included in a participant’s 

service area. 

Accountability and Oversight. The 

Commission relies on mandatory 

deployment, reporting and testing 

requirements, and oversight rules to 

reduce waste, fraud, and abuse of 

program support and ensure that 

carriers are meeting their commitments 

to provide high-quality broadband 

services. The Commission adopts its 

proposal to require the same reporting, 

performance testing, document 

retention, and oversight requirements 

for the Alaska Connect Fund recipients, 

including penalties for failure to meet 

the obligations, as for Alaska Plan 

carriers. Commenters generally agreed 

that continued oversight and 

accountability for providers in Alaska is 

necessary in various forms. The 

Commission delegates authority to WCB 

to determine whether additional 

accountability and oversight measures 

are required for Fixed ACF once the 

process for accepting support and 

support allocation have been 

determined. 

Annual reporting. As required in 

§ 54.313 of the Commission’s rules 

applicable to all high-cost support 

recipients, Fixed ACF recipients shall 

file an FCC Form 481 on July 1 each 

year. Fixed ACF recipients will also be 

subject to § 54.314 of the Commission’s 

rules, which requires that support be 

used only for the provision, 

maintenance, and upgrading of facilities 

and services. Further, Fixed ACF 

recipients, like all USF recipients, will 

be subject to requirements and 

certifications in §§ 54.9, 54.10, and 

54.11. 

Performance Testing. WCB may 

adopt, after opportunity for public 

notice and comment, network 

performance testing methodologies and 

non-compliance measures that account 

for unique aspects providing broadband 

service in Alaska and the Fixed ACF for 

fixed services, if necessary. However, 

unless and until WCB adopts such 

methodologies, recipients of Fixed ACF 

support for fixed services shall comply 

with methodologies and noncompliance measures in effect or 

adopted as of the date the Alaska 

Connect Fund was adopted. 

Broadband Deployment Reporting. As 

explained in this document, the 

Commission delegates authority to WCB 

to determine, after an opportunity for 

public comment, whether it is in the 

public interest to support broadband 

deployment through Fixed ACF 

following BEAD and federal broadband 

funding awards. To the extent that WCB 

authorizes a carrier for broadband 

deployment with Fixed ACF support, 

that carrier shall be subject to § 54.316 

of the Commission’s rules, which 

requires high-cost support recipients 

with defined deployment obligations to 

annually report locations where it offers 

broadband service in satisfaction of 

public interest obligations. The 

Commission delegates authority to WCB 

to require similar reporting from Fixed 

ACF carriers that are receiving support 

only to maintain existing networks but 

in the act of maintaining such service 

also increase service (e.g., by installing 

replacement equipment that enables the 

carrier to offer higher speeds). The 

Commission delegates to WCB authority 

to adopt any reporting requirements to 

account for this situation, recognizing 

that WCB may be able to use the 

National Broadband Map to monitor as 

needed since the carrier will not have a 

defined deployment obligation. 

Middle-mile Reporting. Consistent 

with existing FCC rules and the Alaska 

Plan, the Commission adopts the 

obligation to provide and update maps 

and notify it of middle-mile availability 

and any service that becomes 

commercially available. The 

Commission finds that it is in the public 

interest to continue monitoring middlemile availability and costs in Alaska to 

determine how USF support is most 

efficiently used. While a carrier may 

upgrade its network based on the newly 

available middle-mile, the Commission 

does not necessarily require carriers to 

upgrade networks during the Fixed ACF 

support term because Fixed ACF 

prioritizes network sustaining support. 

The Commission also adopts a reporting 

requirement for newly deployed 

backhaul. The Commission requires 

Fixed ACF participants to submit fiber 

network maps or microwave network 

maps in the format specified by the 

Bureaus covering eligible areas and to 

update such maps if a recipient has 

deployed middle-mile facilities in the 

prior calendar year that are or will be 

used to support its service in eligible 

areas. While the Commission adopts 

this reporting requirement, it 

nonetheless delegates to WCB the 

authority to revise the reporting 

requirements to meet monitoring and 

compliance needs for Fixed ACF 

support while also easing administrative 

burdens, and WCB may assess how the 

new requirements adopted for mobile 

can be leverage for fixed networks. 

Compliance and Recordkeeping. 

Recipients of Fixed ACF support shall 

be subject to the compliance measures, 

recordkeeping requirements and audit 

requirements set forth in § 54.320(a)–(c). 

In addition, recipients of Fixed ACF 

shall be subject to the non-compliance 

measures set forth in § 54.320(d). The 

Commission directs WCB to issue 

guidance on how § 54.320(d) will apply 

to maintenance of specific deployment, 

absent requirements to do additional 

deployment. In addition, as noted 

above, Fixed ACF support recipients 

will be subject to network performance 

testing. The Commission directs USAC, 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 250 / Tuesday, December 31, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 107205 

under the oversight of WCB and the 

Office of the Managing Director, to 

review and revise its audit procedures 

to take into account the changes 

adopted in this document. 

Affordability Requirement. While 

affordability is certainly at the forefront 

of the Commission’s interests, 

particularly in Alaska, it declines to 

require the offering of a low-cost plan as 

a condition of receiving Alaska Connect 

Fund support. The Commission finds 

that it seeks improved affordability 

through the design of the Alaska 

Connect Fund program generally and 

that a separate requirement to provide a 

low-cost plan separate from Lifeline 

service is not necessary at this time. The 

Commission understands the argument 

from some commenters that a consumer 

subsidy can help affordability of service; 

however, it finds that the high-cost 

program is not the appropriate USF 

program to address that issue directly. 

Additionally, some of the infrastructure 

programs that Fixed ACF recipients will 

also be participating in already 

implement this requirement. Further, 

the Affordable Connectivity Program 

(ACP) concluded on June 1, 2024 due to 

a lack of additional funding from 

Congress, making it impossible at this 

time for us to require that recipients 

participate in ACP or a substantially 

similar successor program. Nonetheless, 

the Commission delegates authority to 

WCB to adopt rules, after an 

opportunity for public comment, on 

ACF provider participation in ACP, if 

that program is re-authorized, or a 

substantially similar successor program 

is enacted or adopted. 

The Commission also finds that it is 

in the public interest to provide carriers 

currently receiving USF high-cost 

support for service in Alaska under the 

Alaska Plan, ACS Order, or A–CAM 

with phased down support over a threeyear period if the amount of annual 

support a participant will receive in 

Fixed ACF is less than the amount of 

annual support the participant received 

in ACF Transition. The Commission has 

provided phase-down support to 

carriers in several high-cost support 

programs when the amount a carrier is 

expected to receive going forward is less 

than the amount of support a carrier 

receives under the current program. 

While the Commission has structured 

phase-down slightly differently for 

various high-cost programs, each phasedown is adapted to the specifics of the 

program and the expected difficulties 

for the providers, as well as consumers, 

in shifting high-cost support from one 

carrier to another. 

In the Alaska Connect Fund Notice, 

the Commission sought comment on 

whether phase-down support was 

appropriate for a period of time as it 

transitioned carriers from current 

Alaska support mechanisms to the 

Alaska Connect Fund. The Commission 

did not receive comments specifically 

regarding such a phase down. 

Nevertheless, the Commission finds that 

a phase-down period of support for 

carriers that will receive less Fixed ACF 

support than the support they are 

receiving during ACF Transition or no 

Fixed ACF support will ensure a 

reasonable transition to Fixed ACF 

amounts and allow carriers to plan 

network expenditures accordingly to 

ensure continuity of service for 

consumers. Beginning in January 2029, 

a carrier that receives support during 

ACF Transition and is not eligible for 

Fixed ACF support or will receive less 

Fixed ACF support than ACF Transition 

support, will receive the following highcost support in addition to its Fixed 

ACF support, as applicable: 

• The first 12 months (2029), the 

carrier will receive 60% of the 

difference between ACF Transition and 

Fixed ACF support; 

• The second 12 months (2030), the 

carrier will receive 30% of the 

difference between ACF Transition and 

Fixed ACF support; 

• The third 12 months (2031), the 

carrier will receive 15% of the 

difference between ACF Transition and 

Fixed ACF support; 

• Thereafter, the carrier will receive 

whatever, if any, Fixed ACF support for 

which they are authorized for the 

remainder of the support term. 

TABLE 1—EXAMPLES OF TRANSITIONAL SUPPORT

Support year 

Example 1: Carrier A receives $1 million 

in ACF transition support and is eligible 

for $700,000 in fixed ACF support 

Example 2: Carrier B receives $1 million 

in ACF transition support and is eligible 

for $200,000 in fixed ACF support 

Example 3: Carrier C receives $1 million 

in ACF transition support and is 

ineligible for Fixed ACF support 

2029 ................ $880,000 ................................................. $680,000 ................................................. $600,000. 

[$700,000 + (60% × 300,000)] ................ [$200,000 + (60% × $800,000)] .............. (60% × $1,000,000). 

2030 ................ $790,000 ................................................. $440,000 ................................................. 300,000. 

[700,000 + (30% × 300,000)] .................. [$200,000 + (30% × $800,000)] .............. (30% × $1,000,000). 

2031 ................ $745,000 ................................................. $320,000 ................................................. 150,000. 

[700,000 + (15% × 300,000)] .................. [$200,000 + (15% × $800,000)] .............. (15% × $1,000,000). 

2032–2034 ...... $700,000 annually in Fixed ACF support $200,000 annually in Fixed ACF support $0 annually in Fixed ACF support. 

The Commission finds that the 

accountability and oversight 

requirements it adopts in this document 

for Fixed ACF and that already exist 

within its rules are sufficient to protect 

the success and integrity of transitional 

support. However, to the extent that 

starting January 1, 2029, or thereafter, a 

carrier only receives transitional 

support for fixed services under Fixed 

ACF, such carrier shall remain subject 

to all reporting and certification 

requirements it had during the ACF 

Transition. The Commission delegates 

authority to WCB to adopt reporting and 

certification tailored to phased down 

support. The Commission also delegates 

authority to WCB to extend phase-down 

support for locations that are not 

authorized to receive Fixed ACF 

support but where the ACF Transition 

recipient is the only carrier offering 

fixed voice service to that location, if 

WCB determines it is in the public 

interest. 

The Commission next addresses how 

to incorporate Tribal consent into the 

Fixed ACF program. In the Alaska 

Connect Fund Notice, the Commission 

sought comment on conditioning the 

receipt of Alaska Connect Fund support 

for fixed services on obtaining Tribal 

consent and adopting a Tribal consent 

framework similar to the BEAD 

program. Fixed ACF is designed to 

prioritize support for the operation and 

maintenance of already-constructed 

networks and not for deployment of 

new fixed services networks. Tribal 

consent has traditionally focused on 

obtaining permission to build out or 

provide new services on Tribal Lands 

and to Native Communities. With Fixed 

ACF supporting already deployed 

networks or networks funded and 

deployed under other federal programs, 

many of which require Tribal consent, 

any Fixed ACF support awarded to 

providers deploying under those 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2
107206 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 250 / Tuesday, December 31, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

programs will support networks that, in 

many cases, were required to obtain 

Tribal consent before deploying. 

Additionally, the Commission reminds 

recipients of high-cost support serving 

Tribal Lands that they are required to 

have annual discussions with Tribal 

governments that include feasibility and 

sustainability planning and compliance 

with applicable Tribal requirements. In 

the concurrently adopted FNPRM, the 

Commission seeks additional public 

comment on this issue for new 

deployments under Mobile ACF and 

any deployments that may be 

authorized under Fixed ACF. 

Before the Fixed ACF term of support 

ends in December 2034, the 

Commission anticipates that it will 

conduct a rulemaking to decide how 

support in Alaska will continue to be 

provided once Fixed ACF has 

concluded. Given the historic levels of 

investment in broadband deployment, 

by 2035, the landscape of voice and 

broadband service in Alaska will differ 

drastically from what it is today, and the 

Commission will need to reconsider 

how best to focus USF support in 

Alaska, the methodologies for 

distributing support, and what 

obligations and standards will be 

necessary to reflect progress in the 

marketplace. The Commission’s actions 

in this document to establish an ACF 

Transition and Fixed ACF seek to 

ensure that Alaska will be well 

positioned with regard to fixed services 

at the end of 2034. 

Mobile Service. As with fixed service, 

there continues to be a need for 

Universal Service Fund support to 

ensure that Alaskans have access to the 

same level of mobile service as 

consumers in the rest of the country. In 

this document, the Commission extends 

support to Alaska Plan mobile-provider 

participants after the Alaska Plan 

concludes on December 31, 2026, as 

detailed in the following. In extending 

support, the Commission makes changes 

to ensure the effective use of USF 

funding, including ensuring funding is 

targeted to current generation mobile 

service, avoiding duplicative support, 

and ensuring support is targeted to 

where consumers live, work, and travel 

in remote Alaska. 

As explained in the following, the 

Commission establishes two separate 

approaches—one tailored towards 

single-support areas, and another 

tailored for duplicate-support areas. In 

eligible single-support areas, the 

Commission extends support with the 

ultimate goal of achieving at least 5G– 

NR service at 35/3 Mbps in an outdoor 

stationary environment (5G–NR 35/3 

Mbps) where technically and financially 

feasible by December 31, 2034. This 

ensures that support is targeted towards 

the latest generation mobile service, 

while also providing certainty about the 

level of support. In duplicate-support 

areas, the Commission extends support 

through December 31, 2029, where 

support recipients are to work to extend 

at least 4G LTE service at 5/1 Mbps in 

an outdoor stationary environment (4G 

LTE 5/1 Mbps) by December 31, 2029 

(ACF Mobile Phase I), and the 

Commission separately seeks comment 

in the concurrently adopted FNPRM on 

how best to award support for the 

period January 1, 2030, through 

December 31, 2034, for these areas (ACF 

Mobile Phase II). 

The Commission also updates its 

eligible areas determination to remove 

those areas that: (i) have an 

unsubsidized provider offering at least 

5G–NR 7/1 Mbps in an outdoor 

stationary environment; (ii) have three 

or more mobile providers offering at 

least 4G LTE 5/1 Mbps in an outdoor 

stationary environment with at least one 

of the providers being unsubsidized; or 

(iii) are inaccessible or unsafe for 

testing. These measures further ensure 

that support is targeted to areas where 

it is needed the most while maintaining 

accountability for how funds are used. 

All coverage analysis including all 

performance plans required by the 

Alaska Connect Fund—i.e., for singlesupport areas and for duplicate-support 

areas under ACF Mobile Phase I—will 

rely on BDC data. Consistent with the 

BDC, all ACF participants must show 

that consumers can receive the 

minimum technology level and speed 

with a cell edge coverage probability of 

not less than 90% and a cell loading of 

not less than 50%. All mobile providers 

will be required to file BDC mobile 

verification infrastructure data annually, 

and mobile providers receiving more 

than $5 million in support on an annual 

basis will be required to conduct speed 

tests and submit speed test results to 

WTB when the mobile providers submit 

their milestone certifications as detailed 

in the following. 

As an initial matter, the requirements 

under the mobile portion of the Alaska 

Plan will remain in place through the 

end of that plan, and the mobile portion 

of the Alaska Connect Fund will begin 

on January 1, 2027. Mobile-provider 

participants of the Alaska Plan remain 

obligated to comply with Alaska Plan 

requirements through the end of the 

Alaska Plan, including, inter alia, 

meeting their 10-year commitments by 

December 31, 2026 and complying with 

any Alaska Plan-specific filing 

requirements before and after that end 

date. In short, nothing in this Order 

shall be read as affecting the obligations 

owed by mobile-support recipients 

under the Alaska Plan. 

As the Commission explains in the in 

this document, starting January 1, 2025, 

mobile-provider participants of the 

Alaska Plan will have their support 

amounts increased by 30%. While the 

Commission increases the mobile 

support under the Alaska Plan and 

continues support under that plan 

through the end of December 2026, in 

all other aspects this increase is not a 

new award of funding with respect to 

deployment. The increase is solely for 

current Alaska Plan providers under 

their current Alaska Plan obligations for 

coverage and deployment. The 

Commission recognizes that obligations 

will increase under the Alaska Connect 

Fund, and providing more support is 

appropriate in order for Alaska Plan 

providers to begin making 

improvements towards those 

obligations, as well as enabling them to 

better meet their Alaska Plan build-out 

obligations by December 31, 2026. 

The Alaska Plan is a ten-year plan 

with the providers’ final commitments 

due December 31, 2026. ATA—which 

represents all eight mobile-provider 

participants of the Alaska Plan— 

petitions the Commission to start a new 

10-year plan, starting in 2024 and 

ending December 31, 2034. ATA argues 

that guaranteed support for another 10 

years would provide the certainty 

necessary for providers to invest in their 

networks. ATA has expressed concern 

about the ability of providers to 

adequately plan for new deployments 

and upgrades while the availability of 

support after the Alaska Plan ends is 

still uncertain. 

In the Alaska Connect Fund Notice, 

the Commission sought comment on 

ATA’s petition to extend support until 

2034, in which it requested that the new 

plan begin in 2024. For mobile, current 

support recipients will continue 

receiving support under the Alaska Plan 

through its original December 31, 2026 

end date, and mobile support under the 

Alaska Connect Fund will begin January 

1, 2027 and end on December 31, 2034, 

subject to the conditions and 

requirements for the program. The 

initial support under the Alaska 

Connect Fund will act as an extension 

of support (extended support) after the 

Alaska Plan ends, with new obligations, 

such as requiring all mobile providers to 

rely on BDC coverage data. Some 

commenters join ATA and urge us to 

commence the Alaska Connect Fund 

term as soon as possible. While the 

Commission recognizes those arguments 

that immediate commencement of the 

Alaska Connect Fund term may provide 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 250 / Tuesday, December 31, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 107207 

stability and predictability to commit to 

long-term investments, or may further 

enable efficient capital planning and 

coordination with the BEAD and 

ReConnect funding opportunities, the 

Commission finds it is important to 

ensure that mobile-provider participants 

of the Alaska Plan meet the 10-year 

commitments they made for December 

31, 2026. And unlike fixed service, 

mobile-support recipients already have 

a single unified end date under the 

Alaska Plan. In addition, because the 

mobile portion of the Alaska Connect 

Fund is a new support fund, with new 

obligations, the Commission finds it 

necessary to allow time for mobile 

providers to transition to the new 

obligations before the Alaska Connect 

Fund begins. In any event, because the 

Commission is adjusting the support 

amounts for the Alaska Plan 

participants beginning January 1, 2025, 

it thinks ATA’s concerns about 

beginning the new plan as soon as 

possible are adequately addressed. 

The Commission discusses the term 

lengths for the mobile portion of the 

Alaska Connect Fund in more detail in 

the following. In addition, the 

Commission notes that mobile providers 

that opt into the Alaska Connect Fund 

will be required—in addition to their 

new obligations detailed in this 

document—to maintain service at the 

same minimum service levels that were 

required under the Alaska Plan, and 

they may not provide less coverage or 

provide service using a less advanced 

technology than the provider committed 

to under the Alaska Plan, as detailed 

further in the following. 

The mobile portion of the Alaska 

Connect Fund will begin after the 

Alaska Plan ends (i.e., January 1, 2027) 

and will end on December 31, 2034. As 

explained in the following, mobile 

support will have different support term 

lengths, or extension periods—as well 

as different requirements—based on 

whether an area is a single-support area 

or a duplicate-support area. For 

purposes of the Alaska Connect Fund, 

the Commission defines single-support 

areas—which it anticipates will be the 

substantial majority of the support 

areas—as areas covered by one Alaska 

Plan mobile provider participant and 

define duplicate-support areas as areas 

covered by two or more Alaska Plan 

mobile-provider participants. 

The Commission rejects ATA 

Petition’s proposal that it allows for 

automatic extensions of a new plan in 

one-year intervals at the end of the term 

unless the Commission acts otherwise. 

The Alaska Connect Fund will begin 

January 1, 2027, and the initial support 

under the Alaska Connect Fund will act 

as an extension of support (extended 

support) after the Alaska Plan, with new 

obligations, such as requiring all mobile 

providers to rely on BDC coverage data. 

The Commission declines to adopt 

automatic extensions in one-year 

intervals of the Alaska Connect Fund, as 

ATA requests. The support terms the 

Commission adopts in this document 

for the mobile portion of the Alaska 

Connect Fund give providers a 

sufficient amount of certainty, but it sets 

a specific end date for the mobile 

portion of the Alaska Connect Fund at 

this time, consistent with other highcost support funds, so that it can reevaluate the broadband needs in remote 

Alaska to determine whether continued 

high-cost support is needed and make 

any necessary adjustments at that time. 

The Commission also rejects arguments 

for annual performance reviews and full 

reviews of the Alaska Connect Fund 

every five years. The performance plans, 

public interest obligations, and 

accountability and oversight measures 

adopted in the sections in the following 

will adequately ensure that providers 

are meeting their deployment 

obligations and are held accountable for 

any failure to meet their obligations. 

Extension for Single-Support Areas. 

The Commission extends high-cost 

mobile support in Alaska until 

December 31, 2034 for eligible areas 

where only one mobile provider 

receives support and offers service, if 

the provider meets the applicable 

conditions of the extension. 

Specifically, if one mobile provider 

participant of the Alaska Plan provides 

service in an area, the Commission 

extends support for that provider in that 

area through December 31, 2034 under 

the Alaska Connect Fund, subject to the 

increased support amounts discussed in 

this document, and new obligations and 

limitations set forth in this document. 

Universal service support is intended to 

ensure that areas that the private sector 

would not serve, without subsidies, can 

enjoy the benefits of the 

communications network similar to 

urban areas. Areas with one supported 

high-cost mobile provider align with 

how high-cost support was designed to 

operate by supporting one provider in 

an area which can bring the benefits of 

advanced communications to areas that 

lack a private sector business case. 

Accordingly, in areas where only one 

provider offers mobile service to 

Alaskans, it is imperative that the 

service continue to operate reliably and 

consistently; otherwise, Alaskans could 

be left without service. In addition, to 

ensure that consumers in these highcost areas receive the same access to 

advanced communications services that 

should be provided in all regions of the 

Nation, the Commission expects the 

provider to upgrade the service offered 

to 5G–NR in its single-support areas, 

where technically and financially 

feasible. The Commission finds this to 

be a reasonable goal because support 

will be extended to the provider in 

those areas until December 31, 2034. 

Consistent with ATA’s request, this 

guaranteed support will enable 

providers to invest in upgrades to their 

networks and facilities in order to 

ensure that consumers in these areas are 

served with fast, reliable, and advanced 

mobile services, while facilitating longterm planning. 

Extension for Duplicate-Support 

Areas. Where two or more mobileprovider participants under the Alaska 

Plan cover the same eligible area, the 

Commission agrees in part with ATA 

that it should maintain certainty and 

predictability for providers. The 

Commission also finds it necessary, 

however, to balance ATA’s concerns 

with the need to address the problem of 

offering providers duplicate support 

long-term—which runs counter to its 

USF policies. The Commission therefore 

guarantees extended support in 

duplicate-support areas, but for a 

shorter period of time than in singlesupport areas. Specifically, the 

Commission extends support in 

duplicate-support areas for existing 

support recipients through December 

31, 2029, subject to the limitations and 

additional obligations discussed in this 

document. 

In the Alaska Connect Fund Notice, 

the Commission asked how it should 

address duplicate support. While the 

record developed in this proceeding did 

not provide any information directly 

addressing the issue of the appropriate 

support term for duplicate-support areas 

if the Commission were to extend 

support for those areas, it received 

comments regarding the general issue of 

duplicate-support areas, and it uses 

these comments as the rationale for its 

decisions. In addition, GCI notes that an 

extension of support would allow time 

to further evaluate the extent of the 

existence of duplicate-support areas. 

The Commission takes action to 

remove duplicative high-cost mobile 

support after a short-term extension of 

support for providers in those areas. It 

is important to ensure that universal 

service funds are used in the most 

efficient manner and not used to prop 

up competition where it already exists. 

Nevertheless, the Commission cannot 

conclude that subsidies are unnecessary 

to maintain service in these areas solely 

because two or more subsidized 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2
107208 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 250 / Tuesday, December 31, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

providers currently serve those areas, 

and it recognizes commenters in the 

record who urge the Commission to 

proceed cautiously before mitigating 

potential areas of overlap. The 

Commission therefore is not removing 

these areas entirely from eligibility in 

the Alaska Connect Fund because— 

without high-cost support—it is 

possible that no provider would have an 

incentive to offer mobile service in these 

areas, and it would risk the number of 

service providers going from two (or 

more) to zero in an area if it were to 

withdraw support entirely. The 

Commission does not guarantee support 

to both (or more) providers in these 

areas indefinitely, however, given the 

concerns of providing duplicate support 

to multiple providers, and instead seek 

comment in the concurrently adopted 

FMPRM, infra, on a framework for 

allocating and distributing funds in 

these areas after December 31, 2029. 

The Commission finds that this 

approach best balances several 

competing concerns. This framework 

allows for a period of certainty so that 

the mobile service provider participants 

of the Alaska Plan can continue network 

planning and making contractual 

arrangements in the short term if they 

choose to opt into the Alaska Connect 

Fund, thereby continuing to build on 

the progress of the Alaska Plan. And 

while the Commission does not need 

time to evaluate the extent of 

duplication, the additional time will 

allow the development of a more 

fulsome record regarding how best to 

address it. While removing support from 

high-revenue areas may affect how 

providers offer coverage in surrounding 

areas, the Commission notes that 

providers may retain mobile facilities in 

those areas; in areas deemed ineligible, 

however, they just cannot use Alaska 

Connect Fund support for those mobile 

facilities. The extended support and 

notice of the options in the concurrently 

adopted FNPRM, however, allow the 

providers in duplicate-support areas 

time for network planning necessary to 

position themselves to compete to win 

the support in those areas or be ready 

to reallocate the support they were 

using to other eligible areas. 

The Commission delegates authority 

to WTB to resolve any ambiguities as to 

the classification of support areas or the 

determination of which provider 

receives support in an area if they arise 

during the course of the Alaska Connect 

Fund. Support amounts per area are 

addressed in the concurrently adopted 

FNPRM. The Commission delegates 

authority to WTB to resolve support 

amounts per area after the comment 

cycle of the concurrently adopted 

FNPRM concludes. In case another 

mechanism cannot be implemented 

before the start of 2030 for duplicatesupport areas, the Commission delegates 

to WTB the authority to extend ACF 

Mobile Phase I after notice and 

comment, until ACF Mobile Phase II is 

adopted, or until December 31, 2034, 

whichever is earlier. The Commission 

also delegates to WTB the ability to 

impose additional requirements, after 

notice and comment, in duplicatesupport areas for mobile providers to 

receive extended support under ACF 

Mobile Phase I beyond December 31, 

2029. Support would continue 

unaltered under such circumstances 

until ACF Mobile Phase II in duplicatesupport areas begins. 

The Commission finds that its 

approach of adopting two plans 

specifically tailored for single- and 

duplicate-support areas best addresses 

the concerns of ensuring Alaskans in 

remote areas have continued broadband 

service and that mobile-provider 

participants have a level of certainty in 

support for their network planning and 

deployment, while also taking steps to 

address duplicate support. 

In the Alaska Connect Fund Notice, 

the Commission sought comment 

generally on what the Alaska Connect 

Fund for mobile support should look 

like, as well as what actions it should 

take to ensure that Alaskans in remote 

areas, particularly unserved and 

underserved areas, can access and 

continue to receive reliable and secure 

mobile service at reasonable prices. The 

Commission also sought comment on 

how to address duplicate support going 

forward in Alaska. The Commission 

observed that it is generally not the 

policy of the USF to subsidize 

competition, but under the Alaska Plan, 

some areas had as many as three mobileprovider participants providing mobile 

service in the same eligible area. The 

Alaska Connect Fund Notice asked how 

the Commission should address 

situations where two or more 

prospective participants of the Alaska 

Connect Fund cover the same 

geographic area, and whether it should 

continue to provide universal service 

support to two or more providers in the 

same area. The Commission further 

asked whether it should allow only one 

subsidized provider to continue 

receiving support in a duplicate-support 

area, or alternatively whether duplicatesupport areas should be deemed 

ineligible for support. Finally, the 

Commission sought comment on the 

appropriate method to determine which 

provider should receive support for 

duplicate-support areas, and the 

appropriate manner to redistribute 

funds that were going to such areas. 

Commenters varied in their arguments 

on how best to address duplicate 

support. ATA, which has members that 

receive duplicate support, argued that 

the Commission should continue to 

provide support to these areas to ensure 

continuity of service and indicated that 

if support in duplicate-support areas is 

eliminated, it would prevent such 

providers from serving surrounding 

areas. Additionally, ATA claims that 

providers in overlapping areas rely on 

the other provider’s network in certain 

instances (leases and roaming) and 

without continued universal service 

support, there is a risk a provider will 

no longer be able to service that area. 

Joining in ATA’s position, GCI cautions 

against automatically excluding areas 

from Alaska Connect Fund support due 

to the presence of multiple providers, 

noting that it is critical the Commission 

avoid a situation where it decreases 

services available to Alaskans. 

Ketchikan Public Utilities notes that due 

to its high cost in Alaska, middle-mile 

infrastructure is often utilized by both 

the facility owner and one or more 

competitors, and that such 

infrastructure may not be built absent 

support comparable to the Alaska Plan. 

Alaska Middle Mile Alliance (AMMA), 

on the other hand, recommends that the 

Commission redistribute the duplicate 

support to middle-mile support to help 

providers fulfill their build-out 

commitments. 

While commenters urge the 

Commission to preserve support for 

existing mobile services even where 

they overlap, the Commission finds that 

eliminating duplicate support continues 

to be the most effective policy for 

achieving its universal service goals. 

The Commission adopted this policy 

after evaluating over a decade of 

experience supporting multiple 

networks in the same area and 

determining that it should no longer 

subsidize competition, and the 

Commission has sought to eliminate 

duplicate, high-cost mobile support in 

Alaska. The Commission finds that the 

record does not support departing from 

this policy goal by providing long-term 

duplicate support in the Alaska Connect 

Fund. The Commission also rejects 

AMMA’s proposal to redistribute 

duplicate support to middle mile as 

inappropriate. The Commission finds 

that redistributed support from 

duplicate-support areas may be better 

spent expanding and upgrading lastmile networks in unserved and 

underserved areas for the purposes of 

the Alaska Connect Fund, as other 

prominent federal broadband programs 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 250 / Tuesday, December 31, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 107209 

may not include support for last-mile 

mobile services in Alaska. While the 

Commission will not provide duplicate 

support in the long-term, it agrees that 

it should not jeopardize potential 

services to Alaskans in the near term. 

Accordingly, in areas eligible for 

support, the Commission will 

distinguish between single-support 

areas and duplicate-support areas in 

establishing support terms and 

requirements under the mobile portion 

of the Alaska Connect Fund. As 

explained in this document, in singlesupport areas, the Commission extends 

support for current participants until 

December 31, 2034. However, in 

duplicate-support areas, the 

Commission guarantees support for 

current participants until December 31, 

2029, and it seeks comment in the 

concurrently adopted FNPRM on how 

best to award support to a single 

provider in those areas after that time 

through the end of December 2034. In 

the Alaska Plan Order, the Commission 

deemed some remote areas as ineligible 

if there was evidence that the private 

sector would serve the area without 

support. The Commission updates its 

definition of ineligible areas here, and 

where, as of December 31, 2024, there 

is an unsubsidized provider covering 

that area with 5G–NR service at least 7/ 

1 Mbps in an outdoor stationary 

environment or three or more mobile 

providers—with at least one of those 

providers being unsubsidized—covering 

the area with 4G LTE service of at least 

5/1 Mbps in an outdoor stationary 

environment, those areas are ineligible 

for support as those areas have 

demonstrated that they would receive 

service absent high-cost support. WTB, 

in coordination with OEA, will publish 

a map showing all ineligible and 

supported areas in Alaska, as detailed in 

the following. 

Because the Alaska Connect Fund 

will rely on data from the BDC, the 

Commission will use the H3 

standardized, open-source geospatial 

indexing system developed by Uber 

Technologies, Inc.—which is used in 

the BDC—for the mobile portion of the 

Alaska Connect Fund. In the context of 

the National Broadband Map, the BDC 

mobile broadband coverage areas 

submitted by providers are overlaid 

with H3 resolution 9 hexagon area (hex9s) and, in the National Broadband Map, 

if the centroid of the hex-9 overlaps the 

raw coverage area, then the hex-9 is 

considered covered for purposes of 

displaying coverage. Mobile broadband 

coverage data is also made available for 

download from the National Broadband 

Map based on hex-9s. Given the hex-9s’ 

relatively small size of approximately 

0.1 square kilometers on average, they 

can be aggregated to closely correspond 

to any Census geography (e.g., census 

tract or block groups). 

In the Alaska Connect Fund Notice, 

the Commission sought comment on its 

proposal of using the H3 system and 

asked a number of questions about 

whether the hex-9 resolution was the 

appropriate level for identifying 

geographic areas eligible for support. 

While ATA argued that the Commission 

should continue to use census blocks, 

OptimERA commented that hex-9s give 

good resolution and the ability for the 

Commission to monitor providers to 

ensure they are meeting build-out 

obligations. In order to align the 

Commission’s analysis with the BDC, it 

rejects ATA’s suggestion to continue to 

use census blocks as the basis of 

analysis, and rely on the H3 system. As 

in the Alaska Connect Fund Notice, the 

Commission finds the that ‘‘[t]he H3 

system is useful because it provides a 

canonical way to reference, index, and 

compare wireless coverage using 

boundaries that are of a nearly uniform 

size.’’ Because the Commission relies on 

the H3 system to align with the BDC, it 

does not use census blocks as the 

minimum geographic level of analysis. 

The Commission agrees with OptimERA 

that hex-9s give good resolution and the 

ability for the Commission to monitor 

providers to ensure they are meeting 

build-out obligations, and nothing in the 

record disputes the benefits of using the 

H3 system at hex-9 resolution level. The 

BDC mobile broadband coverage is 

displayed down to the hex-9 resolution 

on the National Broadband Map, and 

such data are made available for 

download for easy public understanding 

of approximately where there is 

coverage or where coverage is deficient 

in Alaska. For these same reasons, the 

Commission has used the H3 system at 

hex-9 resolution for defining the eligible 

areas for the 5G Fund. The Commission 

is persuaded that the same system and 

resolution should also apply for the 

Alaska Connect Fund. While the 

Commission does not make the 

minimum level of analysis the census 

block, it does rely on census tracts 

where analysis of hex-9s needs to be 

aggregated. Aggregating at the censusblock level is often too small an area for 

a meaningful aggregated analysis of hex9s, but aggregation of hex-9s at the 

census-tract level offers the benefits of 

integrating census data with the BDC 

data and the H3 system while keeping 

the areas referenced in performance 

plans a reasonable size. 

Coverage at the Hex-9 Level. The 

Commission will use the following 

methodology to determine whether and 

how a hex-9 is covered for purposes of 

the mobile portion of the Alaska 

Connect Fund—for example, to 

determine single- and duplicate-support 

areas, as well as for other purposes such 

as determining whether a provider has 

met its commitments. The Commission 

will determine whether a hex-9 is 

covered by a specific speed or 

technology—or by a specific provider or 

providers—by examining coverage of 

the hex-11s that comprise the hex-9. 

Hex-11s are a finer resolution of 

hexagons available under the H3 

geospatial indexing system. A hex-9 will 

be deemed to be covered if at least 70% 

of the hex-11s in the hex-9 are covered 

at the centroid, by the relevant provider 

and/or technology. For example, to 

determine whether the centroid of a 

hex-11 is covered by 4G LTE, the 

Commission will overlay hex-11 areas 

on BDC mobile coverage maps. Any 

hex-11 whose centroid shows coverage 

by 4G LTE service is considered covered 

and is counted in the number of covered 

hex-11s. For the parent hex-9 to be 

considered covered, the number of hex11s deemed to be covered must be at 

least 70% of the total number of hex-11s 

in the hex-9. Similarly, to determine 

that a hex-9 meets other specific criteria, 

at least 70% of the component hex-11s 

must meet the criteria. The Commission 

has taken a similar approach in the 

context of the 5G Fund, and it finds it 

appropriate to apply that approach here 

for the mobile portion of the Alaska 

Connect Fund. No commenter provided 

any alternatives to determining how the 

geographic unit is covered if it applies 

an H3 system. 

As detailed in the following, Alaska 

Connect Fund mobile provider 

participants must commit to serve the 

hex-9s that overlap with the areas that 

they now serve (under the Alaska Plan) 

and any additional areas, at the relevant 

speeds and technologies discussed in 

the following, and committed to in their 

Alaska Connect Fund performance 

plans. 

In this section, the Commission sets 

forth the requirements for eligible 

providers and eligible areas for the 

extended-support portion of the Alaska 

Connect Fund (i.e., single-support areas 

and duplicate-support areas under ACF 

Mobile Phase I). Eligible areas, 

including single- and duplicate-support 

areas, will be published in a map to 

ensure providers understand the extent 

of these areas for planning purposes. 

The Commission also sets forth a 

process for providers that were 

receiving support in areas now deemed 

ineligible to provide comparable service 

elsewhere to retain the same level of 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2
107210 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 250 / Tuesday, December 31, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

support under the Alaska Connect 

Fund. 

The Commission limits eligibility for 

Alaska Connect Fund extendedsupport—i.e., support for single-support 

areas and for duplicate-support areas 

under ACF Mobile Phase I—to the 

current mobile provider participants of 

the Alaska Plan. Adopting this limit for 

single-support areas and for duplicatesupport areas under ACF Mobile Phase 

I will properly leverage mobile 

providers with existing long-term 

commitments, the networks they 

already have in place, and the progress 

that they have already made pursuant to 

their commitments. Although the 

Commission recognizes some 

commenters’ arguments for fair and 

equal access to Alaska Connect Fund for 

all providers, in balancing the needs of 

Alaskan consumers and the importance 

of leveraging the existing networks that 

were deployed in Alaska with universal 

service funds, the Commission finds the 

record supports its decision to limit 

eligibility to existing Alaska Plan mobile 

provider participants. As detailed in the 

concurrently adopted FNPRM, ACF 

Mobile Phase II and the unserved areas 

auction may allow participation by all 

qualifying competitive ETCs. 

Opt In. To participate in the 2016 

Alaska Plan, competitive ETCs that met 

the eligibility criteria were deemed to 

have opted into the plan if they had 

submitted performance plans. The 

Alaska Connect Fund Notice noted the 

opt-in process from the Alaska Plan and 

sought comment on whether to follow 

the same structure for determining 

participants in the Alaska Connect 

Fund. No commenter offered a response 

in support of or against adopting the 

same opt-in process. 

For the mobile providers participating 

in the Alaska Plan, the Commission 

follows a similar process for opting into 

the Alaska Connect Fund. The eight 

mobile-provider participants of the 

Alaska Plan can opt into extended 

support under the Alaska Connect Fund 

for single-support and duplicate-support 

areas under ACF Mobile Phase I by 

submitting their performance plans to 

WTB for approval, consistent with the 

requirements of this Order, on or before 

September 1, 2026. Consistent with the 

Alaska Plan, the Commission finds 

opting in via submission of performance 

plans to be the appropriate step, as it 

requires an unambiguous affirmative 

step that signals providers’ commitment 

in receiving the extended support. The 

Commission requires the submission of 

performance plans on or before 

September 1, 2026, as it finds this date 

provides adequate time for providers to 

make an informed decision about their 

commitments under their performance 

plans before they are submitted. 

The Commission sought but did not 

receive comment on phasing down 

support for providers that do not opt 

into the Alaska Connect Fund. For 

Alaska Plan mobile providers that 

choose not to opt into the Alaska 

Connect Fund, their support will end 

with the Alaska Plan on December 31, 

2026. If any providers do not have their 

final performance plans approved by 

WTB by December 31, 2026, those 

providers’ support may be delayed. 

Ineligibility Due to Noncompliance. 

An Alaska Plan mobile provider that 

opts into the Alaska Connect Fund may 

have its Alaska Connect Fund support 

delayed, or may be deemed ineligible 

from the Alaska Connect Fund, if WTB 

determines that the provider has failed 

to comply with the public interest 

obligations or other terms and 

conditions of the Alaska Plan or its 

Alaska Plan commitments, or failed to 

meet an Alaska Plan build-out 

milestone. In such case, WTB will notify 

the provider and give an opportunity to 

respond before support is delayed or the 

mobile provider is deemed ineligible for 

the Alaska Connect Fund. In the Alaska 

Connect Fund Notice, the Commission 

noted that a number of mobile providers 

failed to meet their interim 

commitments under the Alaska Plan, 

and asked whether eligibility to 

participate in the Alaska Connect Fund 

should be limited if a provider failed to 

meet its commitments. The Commission 

agrees with commenters that support 

some limits to the eligibility of 

providers who fail to meet their service 

thresholds and required obligations 

under the Alaska Plan. These include 

public interest obligations, such as 

timely data submissions, that could 

affect the assessment of whether 

providers have met all of their Alaska 

Plan obligations. As the Alaska Connect 

Fund is dependent upon BDC data, 

ongoing delays in full and proper 

submission of BDC data may also cause 

ineligibility in the Alaska Connect 

Fund. 

If an Alaska Plan provider is deemed 

ineligible for the Alaska Connect Fund, 

its support under the Alaska Plan will 

not be subject to phase down but will 

terminate at the end of the Alaska Plan 

(on December 31, 2026). For a provider 

deemed ineligible, the Commission 

chooses to end support, rather than 

phase it down, because the provider’s 

ineligibility indicates an unwillingness 

or inability to meet the commitments 

the provider had already made—despite 

receiving high-cost support under the 

Alaska Plan for ten years. The 

Commission does not consider it to be 

a responsible use of universal service 

funds to give support to providers under 

the Alaska Connect Fund when they did 

not comply with their previous 

obligations and are not providing the 

services they promised to deliver to 

their customers under the Alaska Plan. 

Because the mobile portion of the 

Alaska Connect Fund acts as an 

extension of support (with new 

obligations), mobile providers must be 

in good standing to continue to receive 

support. The Commission does not find 

it an efficient use of universal service 

funds to continue to give support to a 

provider that did not use its support 

within that time to meet its obligations. 

If WTB determines that an Alaska Plan 

mobile provider did not meet its Alaska 

Plan buildout obligations after the 

commencement of the Alaska Connect 

Fund, and also determines that the 

mobile provider is not eligible to receive 

Alaska Connect Fund mobile support, 

WTB can take all actions necessary to 

recover Alaska Connect Fund support, 

including those set forth in §§ 54.320(c) 

and (d). In addition, this does not 

impact any separate actions related to 

§§ 54.320(c) and (d) with respect to the 

Alaska Plan final milestone. 

The Commission delegates authority 

to WTB to determine whether an 

individual Alaska Plan mobile provider 

is ineligible for the Alaska Connect 

Fund or will have its support under the 

Alaska Connect Fund delayed 

temporarily until it meets its 

outstanding obligations under the 

Alaska Plan, based on the mobile 

provider’s compliance with Alaska Plan 

and BDC obligations. As part of this 

delegation, WTB may determine 

whether the provider is ineligible for the 

Alaska Connect Fund as a whole, 

whether it is ineligible for specific 

coverage areas based on noncompliance 

(and if ineligible in specific areas, to 

what extent its support will be reduced), 

or whether the provider is eligible to 

begin receiving Alaska Connect Fund 

support once it comes into compliance. 

The Commission concludes that 

Alaska Connect Fund support can be 

used to provide mobile service 

anywhere in Alaska, except for the 

following areas, which are considered 

ineligible under the Alaska Connect 

Fund: (i) areas that were previously 

ineligible due to being in a nonremote 

or competitive area under the Alaska 

Plan; (ii) areas where an unsubsidized 

mobile provider is offering 5G–NR 

service at minimum speeds of 7/1 Mbps 

in an outdoor stationary environment 

based on BDC coverage data as of 

December 31, 2024; (iii) areas in which 

three or more mobile providers—with at 

least one of those providers being 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 250 / Tuesday, December 31, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 107211 

unsubsidized—are offering at least 4G 

LTE service at minimum speeds of 5/1 

Mbps in an outdoor stationary 

environment based on BDC coverage 

data as of December 31, 2024; and (iv) 

areas deemed inaccessible or unsafe for 

testing. Extended support may be used 

to support last-mile mobile service in all 

areas of Alaska besides these ineligible 

areas, consistent with the mandate to 

ensure coverage where Americans live, 

work, and travel. 

In the Alaska Connect Fund Notice, 

while generally seeking comment on 

how to determine eligible areas for the 

mobile portion of the Alaska Connect 

Fund, the Commission asked whether 

any changes needed to be made to the 

eligible areas criteria adopted in the 

Alaska Plan. The Commission 

specifically sought comment on whether 

changes needed to be made to the 

requirement that an eligible area needed 

to have less than 85% of the population 

covered by 4G LTE service of providers 

that were either unsubsidized or 

ineligible for frozen support as of 

December 31, 2014. The Commission 

noted that in the 5G Fund Further 

Notice, 88 FR 66781, September 28, 

2023, it proposed to make ineligible 

those areas served with 5G–NR at 

speeds of at least 7/1 Mbps by an 

unsubsidized provider, and it sought 

comment on whether this proposal 

could apply to the Alaska Connect 

Fund. The Commission also noted 

situations where as many as three 

mobile providers were receiving support 

and serving the same eligible area under 

the Alaska Plan, and asked how it 

should address situations in which two 

or more prospective participants in the 

Alaska Connect Fund cover the same 

geographic area. 

While ATA asks the Commission not 

to remove support in areas where an 

unsubsidized provider offers service, 

this is inconsistent with Commission 

policy to be fiscally responsible and to 

ensure that limited USF funding is used 

efficiently. The Commission concludes 

that continuing to subsidize areas where 

there already is an unsubsidized 

competitor offering service is an 

inefficient use of limited resources, 

would not lead to a loss of service if 

funds were removed from the area, and 

could limit its ability to expand 5G 

coverage to as many Alaskan areas as 

possible. 

Quintillion argues that the Alaska 

Connect Fund should support projects 

in the ‘‘same categories of eligible areas 

as the Alaska Plan, as defined by current 

data from the updated National 

Broadband Map and the State of 

Alaska’s Broadband Office Map, in 

order to foster competition and provide 

affordable service to low-income 

populations.’’ As an initial matter, the 

Commission concludes that areas that 

were previously ineligible under the 

Alaska Plan will again be ineligible 

under the Alaska Connect Fund. The 

Commission also updates the category 

of ineligible areas based on receiving 

mobile service from an unsubsidized 

provider to account for the target 

technology and speed of the Alaska 

Connect Fund—5G–NR service of at 

least 7/1 Mbps in an outdoor stationary 

environment—based on information 

from the Commission’s National 

Broadband Map, as required by the 

Broadband DATA Act. The Commission 

additionally classifies as ineligible those 

areas with three or more mobile 

providers offering 4G LTE service of at 

least 5/1 Mbps in an outdoor stationary 

environment—with at least one of those 

providers being unsubsidized—for the 

same reasons it deems areas with an 

unsubsidized 5G–NR provider 

ineligible. Further, the Commission 

deems ineligible those areas that are not 

able to be speed tested, as it finds this 

consistent with its responsibility to 

protect the success and integrity the 

Commission’s high-cost program. 

Areas that were Previously Ineligible 

in the Alaska Plan. In the Alaska Plan, 

an area was deemed ineligible if it was 

a nonremote area or an area served by 

an unsubsidized or ineligible provider 

covering 85% of the census block with 

4G LTE service as of December 31, 2014. 

The remote areas include all of Alaska 

except the ACS–Anchorage incumbent 

study area, the ACS–Juneau incumbent 

study area, the Fairbanks zone 1 

disaggregation zone in the ACS– 

Fairbanks incumbent study area, and 

the Chugiak 1 and 2 and Eagle River 1 

and 2 disaggregation zones of the 

Matanuska Telephone Association 

incumbent study area (collectively, the 

non-remote areas). For the remote areas 

that were ineligible due to an 

unsubsidized or ineligible provider 

offering 4G LTE as of December 31, 

2014, an early version of the Alaska 

Population Distribution Model was used 

to identify and disqualify those blocks. 

No commenters in the record argue that 

previously ineligible areas should be 

eligible. Accordingly, the Commission 

finds that previously ineligible areas are 

also ineligible under the mobile portion 

of the Alaska Connect Fund. 

Areas that Offer Unsubsidized 5G–NR 

Service and Areas with Three or More 

Providers Offering at least 4G LTE 

Mobile Service with at least one 

Unsubsidized 4G LTE Provider. Based 

on BDC availability data as of December 

31, 2024, areas with an unsubsidized 

provider offering at least 7/1 Mbps 5G– 

NR in an outdoor stationary 

environment and areas with three or 

more mobile providers offering at least 

5/1 Mbps 4G LTE in an outdoor 

stationary environment—with at least 

one of those providers being 

unsubsidized—are also ineligible for 

support. The Commission and the 

universal service program are not 

intended to subsidize competition. 

Providing high-cost support in areas 

where there is already competition with 

advanced mobile service runs contrary 

to universal service policy the 

Commission has advocated since the 

USF/ICC Transformation Order. While 

the Alaska Plan Order contemplated 

that multiple subsidized 4G LTE mobile 

providers may arise in an area due to 

how the Alaska Plan operated, areas that 

already have an unsubsidized mobile 

provider that offers at least 5G–NR at 7/ 

1 Mbps or three or more mobile 

providers that offer at least 4G LTE at 5/ 

1 Mbps in an outdoor stationary 

environment—with at least one of those 

providers being unsubsidized—are 

evidence that the area does not need 

support to yield private-sector 

investment—there is already 

competition in that area. 

First, as the Alaska Connect Fund 

seeks to ensure 5G–NR is deployed to 

remote Alaskans that would not 

otherwise have such service, areas 

where 5G–NR is already deployed 

without use of support demonstrates 

that high-cost support is unnecessary for 

such deployment in that area. This 

approach mirrors the Commission’s 

approach in the Alaska Plan, in which 

it determined that areas covered by 

unsubsidized providers of 4G LTE (the 

target technology at the time) were 

ineligible for support. Here, the 

Commission updates those ineligibility 

criteria based on the target technology 

and speed for the mobile portion of the 

Alaska Connect Fund and other highcost support mechanisms, consistent 

with its proposal. 

Likewise, an area that already has 

three or more providers offering at least 

4G LTE service at 5/1 Mbps in an 

outdoor stationary environment—with 

at least one of those providers being 

unsubsidized—indicates that there is a 

private-sector case for the area. At least 

one unsubsidized provider in the area is 

attempting to make that case even with 

at least two other mobile providers 

potentially receiving a subsidy while 

competing against the unsubsidized 

provider. It is not consistent with the 

principles of the universal service 

program to attempt to pick winners and 

losers in that market by subsidizing 

competition against a provider that 

needs no such subsidy to offer 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2
107212 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 250 / Tuesday, December 31, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

comparable services while competing 

against not just one provider but at least 

two other providers in that market. As 

such, where there are three mobile 

providers of at least 4G LTE service at 

5/1 Mbps in an area—with at least one 

of those providers being unsubsidized— 

there are private sector incentives to 

offer advanced mobile services to those 

areas, and the Commission’s remove 

them from eligibility for high-cost 

mobile support. The Commission will, 

however, allow mobile providers that 

currently receive support under the 

Alaska Plan for covering these areas that 

are newly deemed ineligible to retain 

their support if they commit to cover a 

comparable uncovered area in place of 

the newly ineligible areas. The 

Commission outlines the requirements 

and process for providers to submit 

their comparable service areas in the 

following. 

Areas Unable to be Tested. In the 

Alaska Connect Fund Notice, the 

Commission sought comment on any 

changes it should consider in 

determining which areas would be 

eligible for support in the Alaska 

Connect Fund, and it did not receive 

any comments on how to address the 

areas in Alaska that are unable to be 

tested. Given the lessons learned from 

the Commission’s implementation of the 

Alaska Plan, areas that are unable to be 

tested are also ineligible for Alaska 

Connect Fund support. 

In the Alaska Plan, providers 

receiving over $5 million annually in 

high-cost support were required to 

support their milestone submissions 

with data from drive tests showing 

mobile transmissions to and from the 

network meeting or exceeding the 

speeds delineated in the approved 

performance plans. These drive tests 

could be conducted by means other than 

in automobiles on roads, recognizing the 

unique terrain and lack of road 

networks in Alaska. Providers could 

demonstrate coverage of an area with a 

statistically significant number of tests 

in the vicinity of residences being 

covered. In addition, some of the 

providers receiving $5 million or less 

annually were subject to drive test 

auditing by USAC. During the course of 

drive testing, FCC staff learned that 

some areas were, in reality, inaccessible 

or unsafe for testing, despite the fact 

that: (i) the Alaska Population 

Distribution Model indicated that those 

areas were populated, (ii) the FCC Form 

477 data indicated that the provider had 

coverage over that population, and (iii) 

the performance plans indicated that the 

providers were receiving credit for 

providing coverage to the population 

included in those areas. However, when 

drive testing was attempted to be 

performed in these areas, the areas were 

not able to be tested and were not 

accessible for testing, and other 

accommodations had to be made, such 

as by allowing an uncrewed aircraft 

system (UAS) to test these areas. 

Where areas are inaccessible or unsafe 

for testing, the Commission will 

consider them inaccessible or unsafe for 

consumer usage and not allow support 

to be used for those areas. This is 

consistent with the principle that 

mobile high-cost support should be 

available where people ‘‘live, work, or 

travel.’’ Moreover, to protect the success 

and integrity of the ACF, all support 

areas must be verifiable, and areas that 

cannot be tested cannot be verified. 

Consequently, areas that cannot be 

tested practically and safely are 

ineligible. 

In determining whether an area is 

ineligible under this category, the 

Commission allows areas that can be 

tested with an uncrewed aircraft (UA) to 

be considered eligible for Alaska 

Connect Fund purposes, so long as such 

testing is possible and otherwise 

permissible. People frequently travel 

and visit areas where there are no Fabric 

locations, such as along roads, snow 

mobile routes, hunting areas, bodies of 

water, or hiking trails. In Alaska, some 

areas where people can ‘‘live, work, or 

travel’’ can cause safety concerns for 

network testing purposes that can be 

addressed by UA testing. As such, while 

the Commission may require only onthe-ground testing in some areas, it will 

allow UA testing as a safe means to test 

other areas in Alaska for Alaska Connect 

Fund purposes when UA usage is 

otherwise permissible. This action is 

consistent with past Commission orders 

recognizing the ‘‘unique challenges of 

providing communications services in 

rural Alaska’’ that are not applicable to 

mobile providers in other parts of the 

United States. 

As detailed in the following, 

providers can be required to test any 

hex-9 they commit to cover under the 

Alaska Connect Fund. Hex-9s that are 

inaccessible during all seasons or are a 

safety hazard to test at all times of the 

year are ineligible for support, and 

providers can voluntarily submit any 

areas to WTB at the hex-9 level they 

believe should be deemed ineligible 

because they cannot be tested or tested 

safely. It is the providers’ responsibility 

to know that they are using support 

consistent with these requirements. 

Where a provider claims credit for hex9s in its coverage areas, providers may 

lose support in proportion to the hex-9s 

that are later deemed ineligible. Again, 

providers who currently receive support 

under the Alaska Plan for these areas 

newly deemed ineligible under the 

Alaska Connect Fund may commit to 

cover comparable uncovered areas in 

order to retain their support, as 

discussed in the following. 

To ensure that all providers fully 

understand which areas are eligible and 

ineligible for Alaska Connect Fund 

mobile support, and of those that are 

eligible, which are in duplicate-support, 

single-support, or other eligible areas, 

the Commission delegates authority to 

WTB, in coordination with OEA, to 

publish a map or maps of these areas 

and seek comment on such maps. The 

map or maps would identify all such 

areas on a hex-9 basis. The Commission 

directs WTB, in coordination with OEA, 

to publish the preliminary map or maps, 

based on mobile providers’ BDC mobile 

availability data as of December 31, 

2024, no later than October 1, 2025. The 

map or maps will rely on BDC data and 

information learned about the areas. 

Such a map or maps will help reduce 

any potential misunderstandings 

regarding where a provider is permitted 

to use support. Mobile providers 

seeking support under the Alaska 

Connect Fund must use the EligibleAreas Map to determine the areas in 

Alaska that are eligible for support. 

The Commission delegates authority 

to WTB, in coordination with OEA, to 

seek comment on the maps’ accuracy, to 

resolve any disputes that may arise over 

the classification of an area, and to seek 

comment on the Eligible-Areas Map(s) 

after it is published on or before October 

1, 2025. The Commission also delegates 

authority to WTB, in coordination with 

OEA, to release, in conjunction with 

release of the Eligible-Areas Map(s), 

information on the eligible mobile 

providers’ hex-9 coverage (e.g., number 

of hex-9s each provider covers by 

census tract; number of hex-9s in 

ineligible areas) based on mobile 

providers’ BDC availability data as of 

December 31, 2024, if WTB, in 

coordination with OEA, finds such 

information to be necessary for 

development of mobile providers’ 

performance plans. In addition, the 

Commission delegates authority to 

WTB, in coordination with OEA, to seek 

comment periodically to update the 

map(s) throughout the course of the 

Alaska Connect Fund, as necessary. For 

example, this could occur as new areas 

that are deemed inaccessible for testing 

are discovered, as uncovered areas 

become ‘‘single-support areas’’ under 

the comparable service area mechanism, 

or to reflect later vintages of BDC 

availability data, as appropriate. 

The Commission will allow Alaska 

Connect Fund mobile-provider 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 250 / Tuesday, December 31, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 107213 

participants that will no longer receive 

support for a newly ineligible area or 

areas to continue receiving the same 

level of support if they cover a 

comparable number of hex-9s 

elsewhere. The Commission sets forth 

the parameters for covering a 

comparable number of hex-9s in the 

following. 

In the Alaska Connect Fund Notice, 

the Commission asked, in the context of 

duplicate support, whether it should 

‘‘allow the providers that would no 

longer receive support for that particular 

area to submit new hex-9s (where there 

is no duplication), in order to retain the 

same level of support.’’ Because the 

extended support under the Alaska 

Connect Fund (i.e., for single-support 

areas and duplicate-support areas under 

ACF Mobile Phase I) is intended to give 

providers certainty of support for 

network planning and deployment, the 

Commission finds it reasonable to give 

mobile providers an opportunity to 

retain support even if areas that they 

cover become newly ineligible under 

the extended support for Alaska 

Connect Fund. The Commission will 

not, however, allocate all of the Alaska 

Plan mobile provider’s support to its 

remaining eligible areas, as ATA 

suggests, because it finds that it would 

not be a prudent and efficient use of 

high-cost support to provide the same 

support to offer less coverage. Moreover, 

even though the Commission set higher 

deployment goals under the Alaska 

Connect Fund, the 30% support 

increase—which begins in January 2025 

and extends through the duration of the 

Alaska Connect Fund—is intended to 

address a provider’s deployment and 

service needs for its entire coverage 

area. If a provider is no longer eligible 

to receive support for certain areas in its 

coverage area, it must cover additional 

areas to maintain the same level of 

support. 

Determining Comparable Areas 

Before Performance Plan Submission. 

To retain support, providers currently 

receiving support under the Alaska Plan 

for coverage of newly ineligible areas 

must use their Alaska Connect Fund 

support to cover a comparable number 

of otherwise uncovered hex-9s 

elsewhere, subject to claw back in their 

support if they do not do so. To be 

considered ‘‘comparable,’’ the 

Commission expects a provider to cover 

the same number of uncovered hex-9s as 

the number of hex-9s that were 

ineligible, unless the mobile-provider 

participant of the Alaska Connect Fund 

can provide justification that a lower 

number of hex-9s that it would be 

covering elsewhere is ‘‘comparable’’ to 

the number of newly ineligible hex-9s, 

as described in the following. If, for 

example, the Eligible-Areas Map reveals 

that 100 hex-9s that an Alaska Plan 

mobile provider was covering are 

deemed ineligible in the Alaska Connect 

Fund, then that provider would have to 

commit to cover 100 different hex-9s 

that are shown as uncovered in the 

Eligible-Areas Map (or a lower number 

of hex-9s, if it justifies why a lower 

number is still comparable). If it does 

not commit to cover a comparable 

number of hex-9s, the provider may not 

retain the same level of support it was 

receiving for the 100 hex-9s that are 

ineligible. 

Providers must incorporate their 

comparable areas into their performance 

plans under the Alaska Connect Fund, 

for WTB approval. Specifically, each 

mobile provider must remove the 

ineligible hex-9s from its commitment, 

and in a separate category in the 

performance plan, specify how many 

comparable hex-9s it commits to cover, 

by census tract, as detailed in the 

following. The Commission delegates 

authority to WTB, in coordination with 

OEA, to work with providers in their 

submissions of ‘‘comparable number of 

hex-9s’’ to meet the requirements of this 

section. Where a provider commits to 

cover the same number of uncovered 

hex-9s, that will be considered a safe 

harbor, and a provider will have such 

coverage deemed ‘‘comparable’’ to the 

coverage where it no longer has support. 

However, if a provider wishes to 

commit to fewer hex-9s than the number 

of hex-9s that were deemed ineligible, it 

must demonstrate why this lower 

number constitutes ‘‘comparable’’ 

coverage. For instance, a provider may 

demonstrate that the newly covered, 

fewer number of hex-9s contain the 

same value or more than the newly 

ineligible hex-9s because they cover 

more BSLs or area of significance to the 

local community. The Commission 

delegates authority to WTB, in 

coordination with OEA, to make the 

determination of whether a provider is 

covering a ‘‘comparable number of hex9s.’’ 

Once approved, comparable areas will 

be treated as part of the provider’s 

single-support areas, subject to the 

deployment obligations and 

performance requirements for those 

areas. Where an Alaska Connect Fund 

recipient covers a new, uncovered hex9, it will be considered a single-support 

area attributed to the provider that 

shows coverage to that hex-9 first, based 

on BDC data. In the event both 

providers first report coverage for the 

same area in the same data set or one 

provider’s earlier filed data is deemed 

inaccurate, the hex-9 will be considered 

a single-support area attributed to 

whichever provider has its updated 

performance plan accepted first. 

The Commission delegates authority 

to WTB, in coordination with OEA, to 

resolve any ambiguities to the 

classification of support areas as 

ineligible, duplicate-support, singlesupport areas, and other eligible areas— 

including for ‘‘comparable areas’’; to 

determine which provider receives 

support in an area if such ambiguities 

arise during the course of the Alaska 

Connect Fund, as discussed in this 

document; and to determine support 

amounts for these areas, as needed, after 

opportunity for public comment on this 

issue in response to the concurrently 

adopted FNPRM. Where an Alaska Plan 

mobile-provider participant does not 

have an updated performance plan 

approved by WTB with comparable 

areas for the Alaska Connect Fund, that 

provider will have its proportional 

support phased down, beginning 90 

days after being notified by WTB that it 

is receiving support in an ineligible area 

or by January 1, 2027, whichever is 

later. Mobile-provider participants that 

have new performance plans with 

comparable areas approved by WTB 

may receive restoration of the support 

that was phased down for the areas that 

the comparable areas replaced. 

Determining Comparable Areas After 

Performance Plans. Recipients of ACF 

mobile extended support may need to 

cover a comparable number of hex-9s at 

different times after initial performance 

plans are accepted and during the 

course of the Alaska Connect Fund, if an 

area of inaccessible hex-9s is 

discovered. For areas where providers 

may lose support because an area is 

deemed ineligible after their 

performance plan has been accepted, 

providers will still have an opportunity 

to retain support by committing to cover 

a comparable number of uncovered hex9s elsewhere. For example, if a provider 

committed to cover 100 hex-9s and is 

covering exactly 100 hex-9s, and 10 of 

that provider’s hex-9s are deemed 

inaccessible for testing, then the 

provider must meet its Alaska Connect 

Fund commitment by covering 10 new 

hex-9s (unless it justifies that a lower 

number of hex-9s are comparable) and 

reflect that and the census tract where 

it is covering the comparable hex-9s in 

an updated performance plan. The 

mobile provider must provide a notation 

in the performance plan for the 

comparable hex-9s, identifying in which 

census tracts the ineligible hex-9s are 

located and how many of those hex-9s 

are being replaced by any particular 

group of comparable hex-9s. The 

Commission delegates authority to 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2
107214 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 250 / Tuesday, December 31, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

WTB, in coordination with OEA, to 

require additional clarifying information 

that allows identification and 

determination of which comparable 

hex-9s are replacing which group of 

ineligible hex-9s. As providers discover 

ineligible hex-9s after their performance 

plans are approved, they must remove 

those ineligible hex-9s from their hex-9 

commitments in their performance 

plans and reflect the new number of 

comparable hex-9s in the comparable 

hex-9 commitments category in their 

new, proposed performance plans. The 

providers must submit new performance 

plans whenever they need new 

comparable hex-9s approved. Where 

two providers cover the same hex-9s 

and one provider claims that the area is 

inaccessible for testing, but the other 

provider does not, the area would 

become a part of the latter provider’s 

single-support area, and the former 

provider would have to cover the same 

number of hex-9s elsewhere. 

All inaccessible hex-9s and updated 

performance plans must be submitted to 

WTB before the buildout milestones are 

due. If providers discover some areas 

are inaccessible during required speed 

testing or during an audit, the provider 

will be in noncompliance for those hex9s, and potentially additional hex-9s if 

the inaccessible hex-9s were selected 

through random sampling. If this 

noncompliance is discovered for the 

interim milestone testing, the provider 

may identify, in an updated 

performance plan, comparable hex-9s 

that it will serve. If the provider’s 

updated performance plan is not 

approved within 90 days of the provider 

being notified that it is covering 

ineligible hex-9s because those hex-9s 

cannot be tested, then the provider will 

have a proportional amount of support 

phased down. If the provider’s updated 

performance plan for covering 

comparable hex-9s is approved after 90 

days, it may have any support that was 

phased down restored. 

Just as with determination of 

comparable areas before submission of 

performance plans, the Commission 

delegates authority to WTB to work with 

providers in their submissions of 

‘‘comparable number of hex-9s’’ after 

their initial performance plans, as 

necessary, to meet the requirements of 

this section. The Commission also 

delegates authority to WTB to determine 

whether a provider is covering a 

‘‘comparable area,’’ and to resolve any 

ambiguities with respect to coverage 

and/or any amount of support that 

should be withheld if a provider does 

not cover a comparable area. 

Minimum Provision of Service. In 

addition to the increased speed goals 

the Commission adopts in this 

document, Alaska Connect Fund mobile 

support recipients must provide service 

with at least the same minimum service 

levels as required under the Alaska Plan 

and may not provide less coverage or 

provide service using a less advanced 

technology than the provider committed 

to under the Alaska Plan. 

Under the Alaska Plan, mobileprovider participants were required to 

provide stand-alone voice service and, 

at a minimum, offer to maintain the 

level of data service they were providing 

as of the respective dates their 

individual plans were adopted by WTB. 

They were also required to improve 

service consistent with their approved 

performance plans through December 

31, 2026. In the Alaska Connect Fund 

Notice, the Commission raised this 

public-interest obligation and sought 

comment on what, if any, changes it 

should make to this and other public 

interest obligations from the Alaska 

Plan. As a general matter, commenters 

acknowledge the importance of 

maintaining existing service with the 

Alaska Connect Fund. While some 

commenters argue against a stand-alone 

voice requirement, others support this 

requirement as a ‘‘bedrock principle.’’ 

In order to maintain the progress 

made under the Alaska Plan—and to 

ensure that Alaskans in remote areas 

maintain the same or better level of 

service—the Commission requires 

Alaska Connect Fund mobile-support 

recipients to continue to maintain the 

minimum service levels—to the same 

areas—that they achieved under the 

Alaska Plan. All Alaska Connect Fund 

mobile-support recipients must 

continue to meet all of the publicinterest obligations of the Alaska Plan 

and must not reduce service to 

Alaskans. This includes continuing to 

provide voice service, as required of all 

ETCs, to maintain at least the level of 

data service they are providing to their 

previous coverage areas as of the end of 

the Alaska Plan, and to improve service 

consistent with their approved 

performance plans through the end of 

Alaska Connect Fund. The Commission 

delegates authority to WTB to compare 

BDC availability data as of December 31, 

2026 with subsequent BDC availability 

data to ensure that mobile voice and 

mobile broadband service levels and 

coverage are maintained or improve in 

all previously served areas. 

Deployment Goals. To receive Alaska 

Connect Fund mobile support for singlesupport areas and for duplicate-support 

areas under ACF Mobile Phase I, Alaska 

Plan mobile-provider participants must 

submit performance plans to WTB on or 

before September 1, 2026, for approval. 

The Alaska Plan had a goal of achieving 

universal 4G LTE, and providers in the 

most competitive areas of Alaska 

committed to provide 4G LTE at 10/1 

Mbps by December 2026. To ensure the 

effective use of Alaska Connect Fund 

support, the Commission expects that, 

where technically and financially 

feasible, participants in single-support 

areas will work to extend 5G service to 

populations who are currently served by 

4G LTE or less, and that providers in 

duplicate-support areas will work to 

extend by the end of December 2029 at 

least 4G LTE at 5/1 Mbps in an outdoor 

stationary environment to areas where 

they do not currently offer it. For singlesupport areas, providers participating in 

the Alaska Connect Fund are expected 

to use Alaska Connect Fund support to 

upgrade service beyond the service 

commitment level they made in the 

Alaska Plan, with an ultimate goal of 

achieving 5G NR at 35/3 Mbps in single 

support areas, where technically and 

financially feasible, by the end of 

December 2034. Regardless of the 

service-level commitment in the 

performance plan, the Commission 

expects providers of single-support 

areas to report on the steps they have 

taken towards the commitments under 

their respective performance plans by 

December 31, 2029, meet interim 

commitments by December 31, 2031, 

and meet final commitments by 

December 31, 2034. 

The Commission’s speed goals for 

single- and duplicate-support areas 

align with BDC standards for the 

supported technologies. As explained 

fully in the following, the Commission 

has different performance goals for 

single-support areas and for duplicatesupport areas because of the potential 

for support changes in duplicatesupport areas, and because in duplicatesupport areas there is already 

competitive pressure to offer service 

beyond the Commission’s goal for 

single-support areas. The Commission 

recognizes that there may be some 

circumstances where a provider may be 

unable to meet these goals. The 

Commission delegates authority to 

WTB, in coordination with OEA, to 

accept lesser commitments in some 

areas as warranted on a case-by-case 

basis, as discussed in the following. 

The Commission encourages Alaska 

Plan providers that opt into the Alaska 

Connect Fund to begin deploying 5G– 

NR as soon as possible. Technology 

commitments in the Alaska Plan 

performance plans are minimum 

technology commitments, so where a 

provider installs 5G–NR before the end 

of the Alaska Plan as it works to meet 

its Alaska Connect Fund commitments, 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 250 / Tuesday, December 31, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 107215 

5G–NR can count toward its 4G LTE 

commitment under its Alaska Plan 

performance plan (i.e., it will receive 

credit for having met 4G LTE under the 

Alaska Plan). 

Single-Support Area Minimum 

Deployment Standards. Providers are 

expected to commit, where technically 

and financially feasible, to offer 5G–NR 

in order to receive support under the 

Alaska Connect Fund in single-support 

areas. Deployment of 5G–NR in these 

areas is important to ensure that 

Alaskans have access to the level of 

advanced communications that other 

consumers enjoy in the United States. 

The Commission also finds that such a 

goal is reasonable in light of the longerterm guaranteed support in these areas 

through the end of 2034. 

In the Alaska Connect Fund Notice, 

the Commission sought comment on the 

level of service that should be expected 

from mobile providers under the Alaska 

Connect Fund. In response, some 

commenters caution against applying a 

one-size-fits-all deployment benchmark 

in Alaska, and they recommend 

adopting standards tailored to each area 

that are flexible and that consider the 

unique difficulties associated with 

deploying in the area. At least one other 

commenter supports adoption of 

uniform service standards. Comments 

from Alaska Plan participants recognize 

that the next phase of high-cost support 

in Alaska should aim for deployment of 

5G. 

The Commission agrees with 

commenters on the importance of using 

Alaska Connect Fund support to migrate 

to 5G–NR, and it expects providers to 

deploy 5G–NR in their single-support 

areas where technically and financially 

feasible. The high-cost Universal 

Service Fund provides support to 

ensure that advanced communications 

services are available to all areas of the 

United States, and 5G–NR is currently 

the universal service technology 

standard throughout the rest of the 

United States. 

The Commission finds it reasonable to 

expect providers in single-support areas 

to offer 5G–NR where technically and 

financially feasible in exchange for 

support through 2034. The Alaska 

Plan’s emphasis was on Alaska Plan 

participants ‘‘work[ing] to extend 4G 

LTE service to populations that are 

currently served by 2G or 3G.’’ Six of 

the eight mobile providers of the Alaska 

Plan will have 100% 4G LTE by 

December 31, 2026. Some of the 4G LTE 

equipment that has been deployed is 

capable of 5G–NR, but even where 

hardware needs to be replaced, the 

Commission is increasing the support 

amounts starting January 1, 2025 and 

expect providers to upgrade to 5G–NR 

in single-support areas where 

technically and financially feasible. 

Some providers have argued that 

middle mile is limited and that, in some 

remote places where it is available, the 

cost per Mbps can be very expensive, 

and that this limits the speeds they can 

offer. However, based on information 

provided by current mobile support 

recipients in Alaska, by 2026, even in 

the most remote communities, satellite 

backhaul will be capable of allowing 

last-mile providers to offer 5/1 Mbps 

speeds, and satellite providers are 

continually adding capacity. In 

addition, middle-mile infrastructure is 

expanding with several Federal 

programs spending hundreds of 

millions to expand middle mile in 

Alaska. Even where middle mile is 

available but too expensive to offer 

robust service to customers, the lastmile providers receiving support have 

five construction seasons from the 

adoption of this Order and a 30% 

increase in their annual support to get 

their communities connected to areas 

with competitive transport pricing. Due 

to the ongoing investment by providers 

using support from the Commission’s 

universal service program and other 

Federal programs, the Commission 

similarly anticipates that 5G–NR at 35/ 

3 Mbps will be achievable in these 

areas, where financially and technically 

feasible by December 31, 2034. For these 

reasons, the Commission set a goal of 

expanding 5G–NR at 35/3 Mbps, where 

technically and financially feasible in 

an outdoor stationary environment by 

December 31, 2034 in single-support 

areas. 

Duplicate-Support Areas. While the 

Commission set a goal of achieving 5G– 

NR at 35/3 Mbps where technically and 

financially feasible in single-support 

areas by December 31, 2034, it set a 

lower goal of at least 4G LTE at 5/1 

Mbps in duplicate-support areas for 

ACF Mobile Phase I. First, based on the 

deployment standard in the Alaska 

Plan, 4G LTE is the universal minimum 

by December 31, 2026, so mobile 

provider participants should already 

have deployed—or be well on their way 

to deploying—4G LTE by that date. 

Second, it would not be reasonable to 

set an initial goal of 5G–NR in duplicate 

support areas because providers in these 

areas may lose support in ACF Mobile 

Phase II, which would start in January 

2030 as discussed in the Further Notice. 

Third, because of the ACF Mobile Phase 

II proposed competitive mechanism, 

providers receiving support in these 

areas in ACF Mobile Phase I have a 

competitive incentive to offer service 

well beyond the minimum in order to 

position themselves better to win 

support in the future. For these reasons, 

the Commission does not set a higher 

speed goal in these areas before ACF 

Mobile Phase I ends in December 2029. 

While providers are to work to extend 

by the end of December 2029 at least 4G 

LTE at 5/1 Mbps where technically and 

financially feasible in an outdoor 

stationary environment to areas where 

they do not currently offer it, in setting 

a goal of at least 4G LTE at 5/1 Mbps 

by December 31, 2029, for duplicatesupport areas, the Commission 

acknowledges that some mobile 

providers in these areas are likely 

capable of deploying 5G–NR service in 

those areas. But the Commission set a 

goal of 4G LTE at 5/1 Mbps where 

technically and financially feasible in 

order to balance the need to address 

duplicate support in these areas under 

ACF Mobile Phase II with providers’ 

concerns about support certainty. The 

Commission is also mindful, however, 

of the need to ensure that Alaskans in 

these areas have access to the level of 

advanced communications that other 

consumers enjoy in the United States. 

Accordingly, the Commission 

encourages providers in these areas to 

commit to 5G–NR for ACF Mobile Phase 

I and to work toward 5G–NR 

deployment as soon as possible. As 

noted in this document, providers that 

deploy 5G–NR in their coverage areas 

before the end of the Alaska Plan will 

receive credit for having met their 4G 

LTE commitments at the end of the 

Alaska Plan (if they also met the speed 

requirement in their Alaska Plan 

commitments) and will be better 

positioned for ACF Mobile Phase II. 

Technology Improvements. During the 

10-year course of the Alaska Plan, 

technological standards of 2G and 3G 

became dated and obsolete. Similarly, 

during the course of the Alaska Connect 

Fund, the technology goal may become 

dated. In the Alaska Connect Fund 

Notice, the Commission sought 

comment on whether the Alaska 

Connect Fund should have a 

mechanism to make a new technology 

generation—e.g., 6G—the deployment 

goal, particularly if other high-cost 

programs begin supporting that 

generation. While commenters did not 

address this issue, the Commission 

finds it important to retain the ability to 

adapt the Alaska Connect Fund with 

changing technology goals. The 

Commission delegates authority to WTB 

to raise the technology and performance 

goals, as appropriate, after opportunity 

for public notice and comment, during 

the course of the Alaska Connect Fund. 

To qualify for mobile support under 

the Alaska Connect Fund, the 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2
107216 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 250 / Tuesday, December 31, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

Commission requires existing Alaska 

Plan providers to submit new 

performance plans no later than 

September 1, 2026, based on BDC 

standards and availability data as of 

December 31, 2024, as detailed in the 

following. The new performance plans 

will align with BDC standards and will 

require new commitments to area-based 

plans by census tract, as discussed in 

the following, rather than the generic 

statewide, population-based plans 

under the Alaska Plan. 

Previous Performance Plans. Alaska 

Plan performance plans required that 

the provider identify in its performance 

plan: (1) the types of middle mile used 

on that provider’s network; (2) the level 

of technology (2G, 3G, 4G LTE, etc.) the 

provider uses to offer service at each 

type of middle mile; (3) the delineated 

eligible populations served, at the state 

level, at each technology level by each 

type of middle mile as they stand 

currently and at years five and 10 of the 

support term; and (4) the minimum 

download and upload speeds at each 

technology level by each type of middle 

mile as they stand currently and at years 

five and 10 of the support term. These 

plans were evaluated by superimposing 

FCC Form 477 coverage over 2010 

census blocks with population 

distributed based on Alaska PopulationDistribution Model. Because the FCC 

Form 477 rules allowed mobile 

providers to file coverage areas based on 

various technologies and various 

minimum speeds, based on the 

provider’s own propagation model, 

Alaska Plan providers could submit 

coverage areas in FCC Form 477 that 

were consistent with the Alaska Plan 

requirements (e.g., 4G LTE at 1 Mbps/ 

256 kbps; 4G LTE at 25/10 Mbps). 

Alaska Connect Fund Performance 

Plans. The Commission requires Alaska 

Connect Fund performance plans for 

mobile support to be based on BDC data 

standards. The Broadband DATA Act 

requires that the Commission rely on 

the National Broadband Map ‘‘when 

making any new award of funding with 

respect to the deployment of broadband 

internet access service intended for use 

by residential and mobile customers.’’ 

The increase in support starting next 

year does not constitute a new award of 

funding because it is part of the existing 

Alaska Plan that provides mobile 

support through December 31, 2026. 

However, after that, mobile support for 

the Alaska Connect Fund begins with 

new obligations that lead to an 

expansion or upgrade of mobile 

broadband coverage. The Commission 

finds that Alaska Connect Fund mobile 

support, which begins after December 

31, 2026, requires that it relies on the 

National Broadband Map data and the 

associated BDC data standards in 

awarding funding for mobile support 

under the Alaska Connect Fund. 

Accordingly, the Commission requires 

initial Alaska Connect Fund 

performance plans to rely on the BDC 

coverage data and BDC data standards 

on which the National Broadband map 

is based and on mobile providers’ 

availability data in Alaska as of 

December 31, 2024. 

In the Alaska Connect Fund Notice, 

the Commission acknowledged that the 

mobile data coverage filings under the 

BDC have changed substantially from 

the Commission’s previous mobile 

coverage data requirements. It noted 

that data for the National Broadband 

Map are filed pursuant to standardized 

parameters or standards that mobile 

broadband providers are subject to in 

the creation of their coverage data (e.g., 

specific speeds based on technology, 

cell edge probability of not less than 

90% and cell loading factor of least 

50%) and sought comment on the best 

ways to use the National Broadband 

Map. Commenters generally support the 

Commission’s use of the National 

Broadband Map for mobile coverage 

data, but some noted that the map does 

not account for cases where a provider 

has claimed coverage by partly roaming 

or leasing facilities from another 

provider. The Commission’s National 

Broadband Map, however, is based on 

areas where facilities-based providers 

offer service. No one commented on the 

use of the BDC technical coverage 

standards for Alaska Connect Fund 

performance plans. 

The Commission finds that basing the 

Alaska Connect Fund performance 

plans on BDC standards will result in 

reduced burdens on providers, given 

that providers are already required to 

submit their coverage data to the 

Commission under the Broadband 

DATA Act. Although the Commission 

has retired FCC Form 477 reporting 

requirements for broadband 

deployment, under the Alaska Plan, 

mobile provider participants must 

continue to produce and submit annual 

deployment data, using the outdated 

FCC Form 477 requirements, to allow 

for like comparisons to the previous 

deployment data on which these 

providers based their performance 

commitments. By contrast, under the 

Alaska Connect Fund, mobile 

participants will no longer have to 

produce and submit additional coverage 

maps because the Commission will use 

their BDC coverage maps to assess 

compliance. 

Unlike FCC Form 477, the BDC 

requires mobile providers to use 

standardized parameters in their 

propagation modeling and data 

submissions. For example, for 4G LTE, 

the BDC requires mobile broadband 

service providers to submit availability 

data that represent coverage where 

mobile wireless users should expect to 

receive minimum user speeds of 5/1 

Mbps at the cell edge, with a cell edge 

coverage probability of not less than 

90% and a cell loading of not less than 

50%. All mobile broadband providers 

must submit biannual BDC filings that 

depict technology and minimum speeds 

at 35/3 Mbps 5G–NR, 7/1 Mbps 5G–NR, 

5/1 Mbps 4G LTE, and 200/50 kbps 3G 

at the cell edge. 

Consistent with the BDC 

requirements, mobile providers who 

intend to participate in the Alaska 

Connect Fund must submit new 

performance plans at the census-tract 

level, which must: (1) include the name 

of the census tract that the provider 

commits to serve; (2) include the 

minimum technology level and speed in 

an outdoor stationary environment that 

the provider commits to provide; (3) 

specify the number of hex-9s committed 

to be covered within each census tract 

at the committed-to technology and 

speed levels, which shall be no less than 

the provider’s coverage in the Alaska 

Plan, minus any ineligible areas; and (4) 

specify how many additional hex-9s 

committed to within each census tract at 

the committed-to technology and speed 

levels are comparable hex-9s. Providers 

are to reflect the additional coverage 

that is required to retain support due to 

areas being deemed ineligible solely in 

the comparable hex-9 category of their 

performance plans. Initial performance 

plans must be submitted for WTB 

approval on or before September 1, 

2026. Separate performance plans are 

required for single-support areas and for 

duplicate-support areas. For singlesupport areas, performance plan interim 

commitments are due December 31, 

2031, and performance plan final 

commitments are due December 31, 

2034. While outside of the performance 

plan, the Commission also expects 

providers of single-support areas to 

report on the steps they have taken 

towards the commitments under their 

respective performance plans by 

December 31, 2029. For duplicatesupport areas, performance plan 

commitments are due December 31, 

2029. WTB will release a Public Notice 

providing guidance on what to include 

in the performance plans and their 

format. 

The Commission delegates authority 

to WTB to adopt requirements and 

develop data specifications, after 

appropriate public process, concerning 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 250 / Tuesday, December 31, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 107217 

the format and method of uploading 

Alaska Connect Fund Performance 

Plans. The Commission also delegates 

authority to WTB to require additional 

information, including during WTB’s 

review of any proposed performance 

plans, from individual Alaska Connect 

Fund mobile-provider recipients that it 

deems necessary for determining 

whether or not they have met their 

commitments. If ACF Mobile Phase I is 

extended in duplicate-support areas to 

December 31, 2034, WTB may require, 

after seeking notice and comment, the 

filing of additional commitments in 

those areas as a final milestone. In 

addition, WTB may require the filing of 

revised commitments when justified by 

developments that occur after the 

approval of the initial Alaska Connect 

Fund performance commitments. 

Hex-9s per Census Tract. Each Alaska 

Connect Fund mobile-provider 

participant must specify each census 

tract that it will serve and indicate the 

minimum number of hex-9s that it will 

serve within each census tract. In the 

Alaska Plan, providers committed to 

cover a specified number of Alaskans on 

a statewide basis. This resulted in some 

communities being deprioritized, as 

some providers put their resources in 

the most desirable remote locations in 

the state, with some mobile coverage 

concentrated on the populated areas. In 

the Alaska Connect Fund, the 

Commission requires commitments to 

be more granular than statewide 

commitments to better ensure that 

communities do not get left behind. For 

the Alaska Connect Fund, performance 

plans must specify the number of hex9s providers commit to cover in each 

census tract. Similar to the 

Commission’s requirement in the Alaska 

Plan, providers participating in the 

mobile portion of the Alaska Connect 

Fund, at a minimum, must maintain the 

coverage that they had been offering 

throughout the course of the Alaska 

Plan based on BDC coverage data as of 

December 31, 2026. 

Because a provider must maintain its 

coverage with at least the same level of 

service in the areas it covered under the 

Alaska Plan, a provider must commit to 

cover any eligible hex-9 in its support 

area and may commit to cover any 

eligible hex-9 not covered by other 

mobile providers. The Commission 

allows a provider the leeway to best 

employ its knowledge of its areas to 

ensure that coverage occurs where it 

will be of most benefit to Alaskans and 

does not impose further conditions on 

which hex-9s must be covered. In other 

words, providers are free to provide 

mobile service wherever they deem 

necessary in eligible areas to ensure that 

people have coverage where they live, 

work, and travel within each census 

tract. 

The Commission finds that using hex9 areas is the best way to identify areas 

that mobile-provider participants of the 

Alaska Connect Fund had previously 

covered under their Alaska Plan 

commitments, while giving providers 

the flexibility to provide mobile 

coverage where people live, work, and 

travel under the Alaska Connect Fund. 

The hex-9 approach also best addresses 

concerns raised in the record about how 

to develop performance plans for Alaska 

Connect Fund support. 

Some commenters expressed concern 

with an area-based approach and 

wanted to ensure that any new plan 

maintained population-based metrics, 

similar to the Alaska Plan. Specifically, 

ATA argues that the Alaska Connect 

Fund should retain a population-based 

approach with population-based 

metrics. GCI has advocated for covering 

residential BSLs for mobile-support 

purposes. GCI argues that, while BSLs 

in the Fabric are insufficiently accurate 

for wireline support, use of BSLs in the 

Fabric is more accurate than reliance on 

the Alaska Population Distribution 

Model and should be incorporated into 

the Model to ‘‘potentially better target 

providers’ service obligation to where 

Alaska’s remote populations most need 

the service.’’ The Alaska Population 

Distribution Model, which WTB 

developed for purposes of the mobile 

portion of the Alaska Plan, indicated 

where people were likely to live, but 

this was a model and it did not identify 

actual resident locations. The 

Commission finds that the populationbased approach in the Alaska Plan can 

be too limiting to effectively meet the 

program’s mandate to ensure mobile 

network coverage is available where 

Alaskans live, work, and travel. Though 

the Commission now has the Fabric, 

which provides information on where 

people live and work, people frequently 

travel in and visit areas where there are 

no Fabric locations, such as along roads, 

snow mobile routes, hunting areas, 

bodies of water, or hiking trails. 

Therefore, the Commission does not 

limit support to merely targeting where 

populations live. A concentration of 

BSLs is necessarily evidence that an 

area is valuable to its users, but the 

absence of BSLs does not always 

indicate that an area does not need to be 

covered by mobile networks, and the 

Commission will rely on input from all 

sources, including the providers 

receiving support, regarding whether 

Alaska Connect Fund support should be 

used to cover an area or not. Local 

mobile providers cover well beyond the 

areas where people live, including 

roads, water bodies, and open areas that 

may be used for snow mobiles or 

hunting. The Commission’s hex-9 areabased approach can give mobile 

provider participants the flexibility to 

continue doing so. 

This approach differs from the 

approach adopted in the 5G Fund, given 

the distinctions between these two 

funds. In the 5G Fund Second Report 

and Order, the Commission required 

that a hex-9 show locations or roads in 

order to be eligible. The Commission 

does not impose this same requirement 

in the Alaska Connect Fund, because 

under the mobile portion of the Alaska 

Connect Fund for single-support areas 

and duplicate-support areas under ACF 

Mobile Phase I, providers will continue 

to receive support for the areas they 

have already covered under the Alaska 

Plan, which was not based on locations 

in the first instance. In other words, for 

the Alaska Connect Fund, the 

Commission does not want to make a 

previously supported area ineligible 

simply because of the absence of a 

location or road—that would be 

inconsistent with its approach of 

extending support for the areas that 

mobile-provider participants covered 

under the Alaska Plan (subject to the 

ineligibility criteria discussed in this 

document). By contrast, it is reasonable 

for the 5G Fund to require hex-9s to 

have locations or roads because it is a 

reverse auction that will distribute new 

support to areas unserved by 

unsubsidized 5G service. In creating a 

different requirement for Alaska 

Connect Fund than the 5G Fund, the 

Commission also noted that Alaska is 

unique from the rest of the United 

States, in that areas that Alaskans live, 

work, and travel are not as clearly 

determined by locations or roads. First, 

many areas in Alaska are accessible only 

by plane rather than roads, and second, 

covering certain bodies of water is 

important to meet the ‘‘work and travel’’ 

aspect of the Commission’s universal 

service goals for Alaskans. In addition, 

in the context of developing a sampling 

methodology for speed testing for the 

Alaska Plan, road data was found to be 

unreliable in certain areas. The 

Commission will not constrain Alaska 

Connect Fund recipients to area 

eligibility rules that were not developed 

with Alaska and the Alaska Plan in 

mind. This approach will allow 

providers, who have local knowledge 

about the communities they serve, to 

continue to invest in network 

improvements via their performance 

plans where they know they are needed 

most. While the Commission does not 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2
107218 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 250 / Tuesday, December 31, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

require hex-9s to include BSLs or roads, 

it strongly encourages providers to 

consider that data in determining their 

coverage, particularly to the extent they 

cover areas beyond those that they 

covered in the Alaska Plan. 

Middle-Mile Disaggregation. Alaska 

Plan providers were required to 

disaggregate their commitments by 

available middle mile in their 

performance plans. The Commission 

declines to adopt a middle-mile 

disaggregation requirement for Alaska 

Connect Fund performance plans. 

Accordingly, Alaska Connect Fund 

mobile support recipients will not need 

to include information about which 

middle mile applies to which coverage 

in their performance plans. While the 

initial Alaska Plan requirement for 

middle-mile disaggregation was 

necessary due to a dearth of information 

regarding the microwave and fiber 

infrastructure in Alaska in 2016, since 

then, the Commission has been 

receiving microwave and fiber 

infrastructure information from 

providers. Moreover, mobile providers 

must indicate on their Alaska Connect 

Fund performance plans on a censustract-by-census-tract basis, where they 

believe transport is inadequate. The 

Commission no longer believes that 

technology conditions need to be broken 

out by the middle-mile infrastructure 

available to better understand the 

limitation of any speed commitments in 

the manner they were in the Alaska Plan 

performance plans—and it will continue 

to have access to necessary middle-mile 

information through the middle-mile 

maps that providers submit as part of 

their obligations under the Alaska 

Connect Fund. 

Consistent with the approach in the 

Alaska Plan, Alaska Connect Fund 

mobile-support recipients will be 

permitted to use their support for both 

operating expenses and capital expenses 

for deploying, upgrading, and 

maintaining mobile voice and 

broadband-capable networks, including 

middle-mile improvements needed to 

meet those ends. As long as an Alaska 

Connect Fund recipient is providing 

service to its awarded area consistent 

with the public interest obligations 

delineated in this Order, service 

expenditures in that area will be eligible 

for support. Expenditures for middlemile facilities may occur outside of 

eligible areas, so long as they are 

necessary to provide mobile voice and 

broadband service in the areas where 

the Alaska Connect Fund recipient 

receives support. 

In the Alaska Connect Fund Notice, 

the Commission pointed to its rule 

setting forth the appropriate use of 

support under the Alaska Plan and 

sought comment generally on whether 

to follow the same approach, 

particularly in the context of how to 

use—and allocate—support for middle 

mile (e.g., whether to allow use of 

Alaska Connect Fund support for 

middle-mile improvements like in the 

Alaska Plan, or to set aside specific 

funds for middle mile). While some 

commenters asked us to set aside 

specific funds for middle mile, no 

commenters asked us to reallocate 

existing Alaska Plan support already 

going to mobile provider participants for 

middle mile only. In fact, ATA 

specifically made clear that any 

allocation of funds to middle mile 

should ‘‘provide additional support, 

over and above current support 

amounts.’’ No commenters asked us to 

change the requirements for appropriate 

use of support for the Alaska Connect 

Fund, and in fact, ATA and other 

commenters in general asked the 

Commission to embrace the ‘‘basic 

structure’’ of the Alaska Plan with only 

minor changes. The Commission finds 

that adopting requirements for 

appropriate use of support that mirror 

those from the Alaska Plan will help 

ensure that mobile provider participants 

have the flexibility they need to best 

serve remote Alaskans with high-cost 

support. 

Reasonably Comparable Services and 

Rates. Section 254(b)(3) provides the 

universal service principle that 

consumers in all regions of the nation, 

including ‘‘rural, insular, and high-cost 

areas,’’ should have access to advanced 

communications that are reasonably 

comparable to those services and rates 

available in urban areas. Similar to the 

requirement under the Alaska Plan, 

under the Alaska Connect Fund, the 

Commission requires participating 

mobile providers to certify their 

compliance with this obligation in their 

annual compliance filings and to 

demonstrate compliance with this 

obligation on December 31, 2029 for 

duplicate-support areas, and on 

December 31, 2029, December 31, 2031, 

and December 31, 2034 for singlesupport areas. 

In the Alaska Connect Fund Notice, 

the Commission sought comment on the 

best means for advancing the statutory 

requirement that rural areas have 

services and rates that are ‘‘reasonably 

comparable’’ to those available in urban 

areas, including how support recipients 

should demonstrate their compliance 

with this requirement. In its comments, 

NTCA recognizes the importance in 

ensuring that Alaska consumers living 

in rural areas ‘‘can realize the benefits 

of ‘reasonably comparable’ services at 

‘reasonably comparable’ rates to those 

available in urban areas.’’ ARIC says 

that ‘‘[d]eveloping a program that 

deploys the same broadband and mobile 

wireless speeds and pricing urban 

residents in Anchorage and other major 

cities in America are receiving is 

critical.’’ Alaska Power & Telephone 

(APT) urges the Commission to be 

flexible in the timing required to 

provide reasonably comparable service 

and rates due to the many challenges to 

providing service in Alaska. AMMA 

says the Commission should consider 

‘‘reasonably comparable rates within the 

ACF that are sensible considering the 

middle-mile technology available to a 

very remote community or location.’’ As 

ATA notes in its comments, it is 

important for the Commission to take 

stock on what has already worked in the 

Alaska Plan, including the obligation 

that providers offer reasonably 

comparable rates. 

To ensure that providers are 

adequately notifying the public of their 

reasonably comparable plans, the 

Commission requires that a provider 

demonstrate compliance by showing 

that it publishes, on its publicly 

accessible website, at least one mobile 

broadband plan and at least one standalone voice plan that are: (1) 

substantially similar to a service plan 

offered by at least one different mobile 

wireless service provider in the Cellular 

Market Area (CMA) for Anchorage, 

Alaska, and (2) offered for the same or 

a lower rate than the matching plan in 

the CMA for Anchorage. This 

demonstration must include usage 

allowances for the comparable plans in 

Anchorage. Because of the unique 

conditions in remote Alaska, however, 

and the variety of circumstances and 

costs of the affected carriers, the 

Commission authorizes WTB to employ 

alternative benchmarks or dates 

appropriate for specific competitive 

ETCs in assessing carrier offerings. 

Participants in the Alaska Connect Fund 

may not cite their own plans in 

Anchorage as evidence of meeting the 

reasonably comparable rate condition. 

Additional Obligations for 

Performance Plans with Less than the 

Minimum Deployment Goals. In the 

Alaska Plan Order, mobile-provider 

participants had additional reporting 

obligations when their performance 

plans indicated that they had backhaul 

limitations, especially where it affected 

their performance commitments. An 

FCC Form 481 reporting requirement 

was added to the Alaska Plan for 

mobile-provider participants that 

identified in their adopted performance 

plans that they relied exclusively on 

performance-limiting satellite backhaul 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 250 / Tuesday, December 31, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 107219 

for a certain portion of the population 

in their service area. These providers 

were required to certify whether any 

terrestrial backhaul, or any newgeneration satellite backhaul service 

providing middle-mile service with 

technical characteristics comparable to 

at least microwave backhaul, became 

commercially available in the previous 

calendar year in areas that were 

previously served exclusively by 

performance-limiting satellite backhaul. 

If a mobile-provider participant certified 

that such new backhaul has become 

available, it had to provide a description 

of the backhaul technology, the date on 

which that backhaul was made 

commercially available to the carrier, 

and the number of the population 

served by the new backhaul option. 

Further, the Commission required those 

Alaska Plan providers that had not 

already committed to providing 4G LTE 

at 10/1 Mbps speeds to the population 

served by the newly available backhaul 

by the end of the plan term to submit 

revised performance commitments 

factoring in the availability of the new 

backhaul option no later than the due 

date of the FCC Form 481 in which they 

have certified that such backhaul 

became commercially available. 

In the Alaska Connect Fund Notice, 

the Commission asked whether 

providers should be permitted to offer 

lesser commitments if they are 

constrained by middle mile, and if so, 

what information should be required to 

demonstrate that an area is middle-mile 

constrained. The Commission sought 

comment on whether it should impose 

requirements similar to the additional 

requirements imposed in the Alaska 

Plan Order for providers that commit to 

less than 10/1 Mbps 4G LTE (e.g., 

submitting an updated performance 

plan when new middle mile becomes 

available). The Commission also sought 

comment on the best approach for 

determining whether the availability of 

new middle-mile service should result 

in changes to Alaska Connect Fund 

mobile providers’ performance plans 

and on whether it could conclude that 

middle mile is not commercially 

available if the Alaska Connect Fund 

participant must pay a particular price 

per Mbps. The Commission asked 

whether providers that are providing 

fixed services at speeds above their 

mobile-service commitments should be 

deemed to have sufficient middle mile 

available to it. Only AMMA, which 

represents two satellite providers, 

addresses these questions directly. 

AMMA supports requiring updated 

performance plans when new middlemile services enter the market. AMMA 

further argues that ‘‘the Commission 

should not consider a new middle-mile 

service to be ‘not commercially 

available’ if the ACF participant must 

pay a ‘particular price per Mbps’’’ and 

argues that ‘‘if the wireline affiliate is 

meeting its commitments in an area the 

mobile provider should be able to do the 

same.’’ 

Given Alaska’s unique geography and 

climate, the Commission finds that the 

public interest would be served by 

permitting Alaska Connect Fund 

applicants, under certain circumstances, 

to request in their proposed 

performance plan submissions approval 

of lesser commitments than the 

minimum deployment and progress 

goals specified herein for the Alaska 

Connect Fund. Specifically, the 

Commission delegates authority to WTB 

to approve requests on a case-by-case 

basis where the requestor cannot meet 

the minimum deployment and progress 

goals at the Alaska Connect Fund 

support levels. Through this process, 

WTB can negotiate individualized 

performance plans with each provider. 

The Commission requires that the 

provider specify the deployment 

commitment it can meet and explicitly 

state the reason it cannot commit to the 

minimum deployment or progress goal 

as a notation under the proposed 

performance plan for each census tract. 

Providers may submit supplementary 

information to aid in this process. As 

part of these negotiations, WTB can 

consider all relevant and practical 

circumstances, among other 

considerations, including middle-mile 

mapping data and wireline affiliate 

commitments in the relevant area to 

help assess a provider’s proposed 

commitment in single-support areas at 

the Alaska Connect Fund support levels. 

Where a hex-9 is more than 50 miles 

from a microwave or fiber node, this 

factor alone weighs heavily in favor of 

allowing a lesser commitment. Given 

the obsolete technological standards 

with 3G or less and the goal of the 

Alaska Plan to achieve universal 4G LTE 

at 10/1 Mbps, WTB is to have a strong 

presumption against approving 

commitments less than 4G LTE at 

speeds of at least 5/1 Mbps in an 

outdoor stationary environment for any 

milestone. 

Where WTB approves lesser 

commitments in a provider’s 

performance plan, the Commission 

requires additional reporting obligations 

for FCC Form 481. The Commission 

requires the mobile provider to certify, 

by census tract, that the basis for which 

it qualified for lesser commitments still 

applies in the previous calendar year 

and to describe on its FCC Form 481 the 

efforts it has taken to improve 

conditions that served as the basis for 

the lesser commitments. When the basis 

for the lesser commitments has changed 

in the previous calendar year, allowing 

the minimum commitments to be 

achieved in the census tract, the mobile 

provider must certify to this in FCC 

Form 481. 

Where a provider certifies on FCC 

Form 481 that conditions have changed 

such that it no longer qualifies for lesser 

commitments in a census tract, the 

provider must submit additional 

information and updated performance 

plans into the Alaska Connect Fund 

docket. Where conditions have changed, 

the mobile provider must submit, for the 

affected census tracts: (i) a description 

of the change; (ii) the date on which the 

change occurred; (iii) the hex-9s within 

the census tract that could be served as 

a result of the changed conditions; and 

(iv) revised performance commitments 

factoring in the change. These filings 

must be made simultaneously with the 

submission of the FCC Form 481. The 

mobile provider may seek confidential 

treatment of information required in this 

section if the conditions for 

confidentiality are met. 

Compliance and recordkeeping. 

Consistent with the Commission’s longstanding approach for the high-cost 

program, it will hold Alaska Connect 

Fund mobile support recipients 

accountable for meeting their 

obligations under the program. The 

high-cost program has various rules to 

protect the success and integrity of highcost support. Alaska Connect Fund 

mobile support recipients shall be 

subject to the compliance measures, 

recordkeeping requirements, and audit 

requirements set forth in § 54.320. If 

specific performance obligations are not 

achieved in the time period identified in 

the approved performance plans the 

provider shall be subject to the penalties 

set forth in §§ 54.320(c) and (d). 

In the Alaska Plan Order, providers 

faced a reduction in support if they did 

not meet their milestone obligations or 

other public interest obligations. Alaska 

Plan mobile-provider participants had 

interim performance plan milestones 

due on December 31, 2021, and have 

final performance plan milestones due 

on December 31, 2026. To evaluate 

whether the provider was meeting its 

performance milestones, the 

Commission took the provider’s FCC 

Form 477 or special collection coverage 

data and intersected it with Alaska 

Population Distribution Model data. The 

amount of support that is withheld is 

based on the percentage of compliance 

gap that the provider has with its 

performance commitments. Alaska Plan 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2
107220 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 250 / Tuesday, December 31, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

mobile-provider participants that do not 

meet other public interest obligations or 

any other terms and conditions may be 

subject to further action, including the 

Commission’s existing enforcement 

procedures and penalties, reductions in 

support amounts, potential revocation 

of ETC designation, and suspension or 

debarment pursuant to § 54.8 of the 

Commission’s rules. 

The Commission has generally 

adopted build-out milestones for the 

Alaska Connect Fund mobile 

competitive ETCs that will be more 

specifically defined based on each 

participant’s approved performance 

plan, with interim milestone obligations 

that must be met by December 31, 2031, 

and final milestone obligations that 

must be met by December 31, 2034, for 

single-support areas and with final 

milestone obligations that must be met 

by December 31, 2029, for duplicatesupport areas under ACF Mobile Phase 

I, unless otherwise modified by WTB. 

Once a carrier’s performance plan is 

approved by the WTB, the carrier is 

required to meet the performance 

benchmarks of the plan. No commenters 

suggest eliminating the reduction of 

support framework, and in fact, some 

commenters suggest that the FCC should 

adopt even stricter measures to address 

failure to meet commitments. The 

Commission agrees with these 

commenters that accountability and 

oversight are important elements of 

ensuring that the Alaska Connect Fund 

is successful and that providers are 

appropriately penalized in instances of 

noncompliance with their obligations. 

Accordingly, consistent with the Alaska 

Plan and the Commission’s other highcost programs, Alaska Connect Fund 

recipients of support that fail to meet 

these milestones will be subject to the 

same potential reductions in support as 

any other carrier subject to defined 

obligations. 

In addition, as the mobile portion of 

the Alaska Connect Fund, provided after 

December 31, 2026, is a new award of 

funding for deployment, the 

Commission ensures that its 

accountability measures are also 

consistent with the BDC data. The 

Commission delegates authority to WTB 

to create any systems for data 

specifications and collections they deem 

necessary for Alaska Connect Fund 

administration to determine whether 

providers have met their commitments. 

Annual BDC Infrastructure 

Submission. The Commission requires 

Alaska Connect Fund recipients of 

mobile support to annually submit 

infrastructure data to verify their 

coverage in areas for which they receive 

support. In the Alaska Connect Fund 

Notice, the Commission sought 

comment on whether it should require 

submission of infrastructure data similar 

to the BDC mobile verification process 

to substantiate coverage and 

demonstrate compliance with ACF 

commitments. While commenters did 

not respond to that specific request for 

comment, several commenters support 

Commission efforts to require recipients 

to demonstrate they have met their 

performance requirements and agree 

that oversight will be important for a 

future Alaska Connect Fund. 

Based on FCC staff’s experience in 

implementing the mobile BDC 

processes, the Commission finds that 

the collection of infrastructure data is an 

important tool that it can use to ensure 

compliance with the Alaska Connect 

Fund requirements. Accordingly, the 

Commission requires Alaska Connect 

Fund recipients of mobile support to 

submit, on an annual basis, all of the 

infrastructure data that providers would 

submit as part of the BDC mobile 

verification process, for all 

infrastructure used to serve an Alaska 

Connect Fund mobile support 

recipient’s supported area for coverage 

as of December 31 of each year, due by 

March 1 of the following year. These 

Alaska Connect Fund recipients of 

mobile support must submit these data 

to WTB by the following March 1 based 

on their instructions. Similar to BDC 

mobile verifications, staff can use the 

infrastructure data to estimate a ‘‘core 

coverage area,’’ in which coverage at the 

modeled throughput is highly likely to 

exist at or above the minimum values 

reported in the provider’s submitted 

coverage data. This ‘‘core coverage area’’ 

may be considered to meet the mobile 

support recipient’s Alaska Connect 

Fund build-out obligations. For any 

areas that are outside of the ‘‘core 

coverage area’’ but within the required 

coverage area, WTB will consider 

additional information submitted by the 

Alaska Connect Fund mobile support 

recipient, such as on-the-ground or UA 

speed test data, and may request such 

information from the recipient. 

To facilitate the process of 

Commission staff review of an Alaska 

Connect Fund mobile support 

recipient’s data, it delegates authority to 

WTB to notify the support recipient of 

any additional requests for information. 

For the purposes of accountability of 

high-cost funds, the Commission 

requires an annual mobile infrastructure 

submission. As the initial map can be 

used and built upon for subsequent 

submissions, requesting this initial 

submission early into the plan is 

appropriate. Moreover, the construction 

of this data set can be used for other 

BDC verification requests, allowing for 

an additional benefit to the provider if 

required early in this process. 

Speed Tests. The Commission 

requires certifications that the provider 

has met its milestone commitments to 

be accompanied by speed tests for those 

mobile provider recipients receiving 

more than $5 million annually. In the 

Alaska Plan Order, certain providers of 

mobile support were required to 

conduct drive tests to accompany their 

certifications that they have met their 

milestone obligations. Specifically, for 

Alaska Plan participants receiving more 

than $5 million annually in support, the 

Commission required that the 

certification that the provider met its 

obligations was to be accompanied by 

data received or used from drive tests 

analyzing network coverage for mobile 

service covering the population for 

which support was received and 

showing mobile transmissions to and 

from the carrier’s network meeting or 

exceeding the minimum expected 

download and upload speeds delineated 

in the approved performance plan. 

These tests allowed providers to 

demonstrate coverage of an area with a 

statistically significant number of tests. 

As part of this process, WTB and OEA 

published a speed test methodology to 

ensure that any speed tests amounted to 

statistically significant sampling of the 

provider’s coverage and service 

obligations. 

In the context of the BDC, the 

Commission adopted procedures 

whereby providers may submit on-theground test data as part of the BDC 

verification process. When submitting 

on-the-ground test data, a provider is 

required to submit evidence of network 

performance based on a sample of onthe-ground tests that is statistically 

appropriate for the area tested for a 

sampled area using the H3 geospatial 

indexing system at resolution 8 (hex-8). 

The sampled area is provided to the 

provider for testing within the 

provider’s coverage area, and hexagons 

that are not accessible by roads are 

excluded from all strata within each 

stratum for the service providers must 

conduct on-the-ground testing. 

In the Alaska Connect Fund Notice, 

the Commission sought comment on 

whether it should require on-the-ground 

test data for supported areas based on a 

sample that is statistically appropriate. 

The Commission noted that, under the 

BDC mobile verification process, if a 

provider chooses to submit on-theground test data in response to a 

verification request, ‘‘it must provide 

such data based on a sample of on-theground tests that is statistically 

appropriate for the area tested,’’ and 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 250 / Tuesday, December 31, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 107221 

that, ‘‘[i]n the BDC, the sampled area is 

based on H3 resolution-8 hexagonal 

areas, and the provider must submit the 

results of at least two tests within each 

hexagon, and the time of the tests must 

be at least four hours apart, irrespective 

of date.’’ The Commission asked 

whether it should apply this mobile 

verification process to the Alaska 

Connect Fund. Commenters express 

support for requiring speed testing to 

help verify that providers have met their 

requirements under the Alaska Connect 

Fund. The Alaska Public Interest 

Research Group and Native Movement 

supports a requirement for USAC to 

conduct speed testing and argues that 

providers receiving more than $5 

million annually should cover the costs 

of USAC-administered testing. 

After considering the record and the 

Commission’s previous experience 

administering the Alaska Plan, the 

Commission finds that it will serve the 

public interest to require Alaska 

Connect Fund mobile providers 

receiving more than $5 million per year 

to submit speed test data generally 

conforming to the BDC Data 

Specifications for Mobile Speed Test 

Data when they submit their milestone 

certifications. While the Commission 

will require annual submission of 

infrastructure data for all mobile 

providers receiving support under the 

Alaska Connect Fund, it finds that it is 

important to require additional speed 

test results for those mobile providers 

receiving the most from the program. 

The combination of infrastructure data 

and speed test data that these providers 

will submit will allow for the theoretical 

engineering model to be verified with 

empirical data, improving the reliability 

of both as a means of understanding the 

realities on the ground. 

While the Commission generally 

relies on BDC Data Specifications for 

Mobile Speed Test Data requirements, it 

expands the ‘‘accessible’’ hexes that are 

included in sampling for purposes of 

the Alaska Connect Fund. Generally, in 

the BDC, hexagons that are not 

accessible by roads are excluded from 

all strata (and therefore all samples) in 

which the service providers must 

conduct on-the-ground testing. This 

BDC sampling decision was made as 

part of a nationwide data collection 

requirement and was intended to ease 

the burden on mobile providers that 

might otherwise be required to conduct 

large scale on-the-ground testing. 

Coverage near roads is easier to test for 

all providers subjected to mobile speed 

test verification nationwide. However, 

for the Alaska Connect Fund, the 

Commission is subsidizing the 

provider’s coverage in all eligible areas 

where consumers live, work, and travel 

that the provider commits to cover for 

that support: this requires an expansion 

of the hexes required for the sampling 

to ensure funds are being used as 

committed to and justifies a more 

burdensome testing requirement for the 

mobile providers receiving those funds. 

For the Alaska Connect Fund, if the 

hexagon is testable by at least a UAS, 

then it will be considered accessible and 

will be included in the hexagons that 

are eligible to be sampled for Alaska 

Connect Fund mobile speed testing. 

Moreover, roads are scarce in Alaska 

and road data have proven unreliable in 

certain areas for the purposes of speed 

test sampling for high-cost support 

purposes in Alaska; expanding the 

accessible areas in this way allows us to 

avoid reliance on potentially inaccurate 

road data in Alaska. 

WTB, in coordination with OEA, is 

directed to provide the mobile support 

recipients with a sample to test within 

four months after their milestones are 

due that tests network coverage for 

mobile service coverage for which 

support was received and showing 

mobile transmissions to and from the 

provider’s network meeting or 

exceeding the minimum expected 

download and upload speeds in the 

approved performance plan. Since the 

sample may potentially include some 

hexes that may only be feasible and 

safely testable by UAS, the Commission 

delegates to WTB, in coordination with 

OEA, to consider under what 

circumstances alternatives to on-theground speed testing data are 

appropriate to validate coverage in such 

areas, including use of UASs and to 

make any other accommodations to the 

testing necessary to determine whether 

the providers have met their 

commitments or not. There may be 

circumstances where other methods are 

equally safe to using a UAS but may 

better reflect the on-the-ground user 

experience, in which case, WTB, in 

coordination with OEA, may restrict the 

use of UASs in some hex-9s for speed 

testing purposes, even when UAS usage 

is otherwise permissible. 

The Commission rejects the 

suggestion that USAC should conduct 

all on-the-ground speed tests and that 

those receiving more than $5 million 

annually should reimburse USAC. 

Administration costs of USAC are built 

into USAC’s contract to administer the 

program, and allowing the audited to 

pay the auditor invites perniciousness 

and has an appearance of impropriety. 

However, providers that submit on-theground speed tests may also be subject 

to drive tests by USAC. 

If a hex-9 is determined to be 

untestable and, thus, ineligible and this 

is discovered during speed testing of a 

provider’s commitments, the hex-9 will 

be counted as noncompliant with the 

provider’s commitments. It should be 

noted that as a result of a random 

sampling methodology, such a hex-9 

will likely represent other, unselected, 

hex-9s. The provider’s support may be 

reduced accordingly, consistent with 

§ 54.320(d). 

Reporting and Certifications. As many 

commenters have noted in the record, it 

is important that the Commission 

provide accountability and oversight to 

ensure USF funds are being used for the 

purposes intended. Pursuant to § 54.313 

of the Commission’s rules, Alaska 

Connect Fund mobile support 

participants must continue to file their 

FCC Form 481 on July 1 each year. 

Alaska Connect Fund mobile support 

recipients will also be subject to 

§ 54.314 of the Commission’s rules, 

which requires that support be used 

only for the provision, maintenance and 

upgrading of facilities and services. To 

provide accountability for Alaska 

Connect Fund mobile provider 

recipients, the Commission requires that 

no later than 60 days after the end of 

each participating mobile provider’s 

commitment (milestone) deadline, it 

must submit a certification that it has 

met the obligations contained in the 

performance plan approved by WTB, 

including any obligations pursuant to a 

revised approved performance plan, and 

that it has met the requisite public 

interest obligations contained in the 

Alaska Connect Fund Order. Further, 

Alaska Connect Fund mobile support 

recipients, like all USF recipients, will 

be subject to requirements and 

certifications in §§ 54.9, 54.10, and 

54.11. 

Middle-Mile Mapping. The Alaska 

Plan requires participants to submit 

fiber network maps or microwave 

network maps in a format specified by 

WCB and WTB covering eligible areas 

and to update such maps if they have 

deployed middle-mile facilities in the 

prior calendar year that are or will be 

used to support their service in eligible 

areas. These maps were limited to fiber 

and microwave links and nodes. 

Providers are required to submit the 

locations of the links they own and 

provide conceptual links for their leased 

links. The Alaska Plan participant 

provides the amount of capacity 

available per link. 

The Commission adopts an expanded 

version of the middle-mile requirement 

for Alaska Connect Fund mobile 

participants. Since the start of the 

Alaska Plan, the Commission has 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2
107222 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 250 / Tuesday, December 31, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

recognized the limitations associated 

with middle-mile access in Alaska. In 

the Alaska Connect Fund Notice, the 

Commission acknowledged reports of 

prohibitively expensive middle-mile 

transport rates and sought comment on 

ways to improve middle-mile access 

and how to address middle-mile 

concerns for mobile providers in the 

Alaska Connect Fund. Commenters 

continue to demonstrate how middle 

mile can affect mobile deployment and 

costs. Addressed in the following, ARCC 

proposes a system for Commission 

support of ultra-high middle-mile 

expenses. While the AMMA does not 

support using high-cost support to 

build-out middle-mile infrastructure 

given other programs that focus on such 

infrastructure, AMMA recognizes the 

benefits of first-hand monitoring of 

middle mile availability and rates given 

the high cost of service. Scarcity of 

backhaul and middle mile remains 

among the biggest reasons that service 

may not be available in an area. Even 

where middle mile is available in an 

area, it may not be affordable—costing 

$700 per Mbps or more—which limits 

the speed of the service that a provider 

can offer in those areas. To better 

understand middle-mile limitations, the 

Commission delegates authority to WTB 

to require each Alaska Connect Fund 

mobile provider to submit, inter alia, 

information about all backhaul and 

middle mile, regardless of technology, 

and the name of the middle mile 

provider(s) from which the last-mile 

Alaska Connect Fund mobile provider 

leases links. The Commission also 

delegates authority to WTB to allow but 

not require providers to submit data 

regarding the price the provider pays 

per Mbps along each link. Including 

voluntary submission of data transport 

rates in WTB’s data collection will 

allow WTB to monitor whether data 

transport rates are being improved by 

the awards provided by other programs 

and to see if such awards allow the lastmile providers of the Alaska Plan to 

bring down their data transport rates. 

The Commission notes that it will 

continue to monitor concerns related to 

middle mile availability for Alaska 

Connect Fund mobile participants, and 

it will take action as it deems necessary. 

Point of Contact. In the Alaska Plan, 

all mobile-provider participants had 

their initial performance plans accepted 

by WTB by the end of 2016. Over the 

course of the Alaska Plan, the mobileproviders’ personnel responsible for 

submission of the initial performance 

plans may have parted from the 

company, in some cases leaving those 

newly responsible for compliance with 

the commitments without the necessary 

information for continued compliance. 

This situation has adverse effects for the 

mobile provider support recipient, the 

Alaskans they are serving, and the 

administration of universal service. To 

avoid this, Alaska Connect Fund mobile 

provider recipients must provide WTB a 

point of contact for discussions 

regarding performance plans and data 

submissions. Alaska Connect Fund 

recipients must notify WTB within 30 

days whenever the point of contact 

changes at a company. All such 

notifications must be submitted to 

ACF@fcc.gov. 

Audits. Like all ETCs, Alaska Connect 

Fund mobile support recipients will be 

subject to ongoing oversight to protect 

the success and integrity of the Alaska 

Connect Fund. All ETCs that receive 

high-cost support are subject to 

compliance audits and other 

investigations to ensure compliance 

with program rules and orders. Audits 

may include speed tests tailored to the 

circumstances of the information that is 

to be verified; providers under other 

speed test obligations may also be 

subject to any and all audits, including 

speed test audits. The Commission 

retains discretion to recover funds or 

take other steps in the event of waste, 

fraud or abuse. 

Alaska Plan Obligations Unaffected. 

As explained in this document, nothing 

in this document shall be read as 

affecting the obligations owed by 

mobile-support recipients under the 

Alaska Plan; they remain obligated to 

meet their 10-year commitments 

(December 31, 2026) and all other 

Alaska Plan requirements at the end of 

the Alaska Plan. 

Consistent with the Enhanced A– 

CAM, BEAD, and 5G Fund programs, 

the Commission requires Fixed ACF and 

mobile provider support recipients to 

implement operational cybersecurity 

and supply chain risk management 

plans. The Commission requires Fixed 

ACF support recipients to implement 

operational cybersecurity and supply 

chain risk management plans by January 

2, 2029—the start of the Fixed ACF 

support term. The Commission also 

requires fixed recipients to submit and 

certify their cybersecurity and supply 

chain risk management plans with the 

Administrator by January 2, 2029. All 

mobile-provider recipients must 

implement their cybersecurity and 

supply chain risk management plans by 

December 31, 2029. Mobile provider 

recipients must also submit and certify 

to their cybersecurity and supply chain 

risk management plans with the 

Administrator by December 31, 2029. 

The plans must reflect at least the 

National Institute of Standards and 

Technology’s Framework for Improving 

Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity 

v.1.1 (2018) (NIST Framework), or any 

successor version of the NIST 

Framework adopted and must reflect 

established cybersecurity best practices 

that address each of the Core Functions 

described in the NIST Framework, such 

as the standards and controls set forth 

in the Cybersecurity & Infrastructure 

Security Agency (CISA) Cybersecurity 

Cross-sector Performance Goals and 

Objectives (CISA CPGs) or the Center for 

internet Security Critical Security 

Controls (CIS Controls). Recipients’ 

supply chain risk management plans 

must reflect the key practices discussed 

in NISTIR 8276, Key Practices in Cyber 

Supply Chain Risk Management: 

Observations from Industry, and related 

supply chain risk management guidance 

from NIST 800–161. The Commission 

delegates to the Bureaus and the Public 

Safety Homeland Security Bureau 

(PSHSB) the authority, through 

opportunity for public notice and 

comment, to update these requirements 

and to consider whether to require that 

Alaska Connect Fund recipients’ 

cybersecurity risk management plans 

reflect at least NIST Framework v.2.0 

(2024) or any other successor versions 

that may be released. 

The Commission also requires 

recipients to submit their cybersecurity 

and risk management plans to USAC, 

and certify that they have done so, by 

the required deadline. Failure to submit 

the plans and make the certification 

shall result in 25% of monthly support 

being withheld until the recipient 

comes into compliance. The 

Commission delegates authority to the 

Bureaus to determine if further 

compliance consequences are necessary 

if a carrier does not comply for an 

extended period of time, for example, 

failure to come into compliance within 

six months of authorization to receive 

Fixed ACF or mobile provider support. 

Such consequences could include 

withholding additional or all Fixed ACF 

or mobile provider support. 

Adopting these requirements 

emphasizes the critical importance of 

cybersecurity and supply chain risk 

management in modern broadband 

networks, consistent with broader 

initiatives across the Federal 

government, while striking an 

appropriate balance to ensure 

compliance with this important 

requirement that avoids 

disproportionate disruption to 

recipients’ support. This action is 

consistent with the BEAD Program, 

which requires recipients to maintain 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 250 / Tuesday, December 31, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 107223 

cybersecurity risk management plans 

that reflect the latest version of the NIST 

Framework for Improving Critical 

Infrastructure Cybersecurity. 

If an ACF recipient makes a 

substantive modification to its 

cybersecurity or supply chain risk 

management plan, the Commission 

requires that carrier to submit its 

updated plan to USAC within 30 days 

of making that modification. A 

modification to a cybersecurity or 

supply chain risk management plan will 

be considered as substantive if at least 

one of the following conditions apply: 

• There is a change in the plan’s 

scope, including any addition, removal, 

or significant alternation to the types of 

risks covered by the plan (e.g., 

expanding a plan to cover new areas 

such as supply chain risks to Internet of 

Things devices or cloud security could 

be a substantive change); 

• There is a change in the plan’s risk 

mitigation strategies (e.g., implementing 

a new encryption protocol or deploying 

a different firewall architecture); 

• There is a shift in organizational 

structure (e.g., creating a new 

information technology department or 

hiring a Chief Information Security 

Officer); 

• There is a shift in the threat 

landscape prompting the organization to 

recognize that emergence of new threats 

or vulnerabilities that weren’t 

previously accounted for in the plan; 

• Updates are made to comply with 

new cybersecurity regulations, 

standards, or laws; 

• Significant changes are made in the 

supply chain, including offboarding 

major suppliers or vendors, or shifts in 

procurement strategies that may impact 

the security of the supply chain; or 

• A large-scale technological change 

is made, including the adoption of new 

systems or technologies, migrating to a 

new information technology 

infrastructure, or significantly changing 

the information technology architecture. 

Further, in their FCC Form 481 filings 

following each subsequent support year, 

Fixed ACF recipients shall certify that 

they have maintained their plans, 

whether they have submitted 

modifications in the prior year, and the 

date any modifications were submitted. 

At any point during the support term, if 

a Fixed ACF or mobile provider 

recipient does not have in place 

operational cybersecurity and supply 

chain risk management plans meeting 

the Commission’s requirements, the 

Commission directs the Bureaus to 

withhold 25% of the Fixed ACF or 

mobile provider recipient’s support 

until the Fixed ACF or mobile provider 

recipient is able to come into 

compliance. Once the Fixed ACF or 

Alaska Connect Fund mobile support 

recipient comes into compliance, the 

Administrator shall stop withholding 

support, and the support recipient will 

receive all of the support that had been 

withheld pursuant to this section. In 

this document, the Commission 

delegates authority to the Bureaus to 

determine if further compliance 

consequences are necessary during the 

Fixed ACF or mobile provider support 

term. The requirements the Commission 

adopts here will improve the 

cybersecurity of the nation’s broadband 

networks and protect consumers from 

online risks such as fraud, theft, and 

ransomware that can be mitigated or 

eliminated through the implementation 

of accepted security measures. 

These cybersecurity requirements are 

appropriately tailored to mitigate 

burdens on small entities while 

maintaining the integrity of our nation’s 

networks. APT suggests that adopting a 

cybersecurity and risk management plan 

is too costly and difficult for small rural 

carriers, particularly without a template. 

To the contrary, these rules were 

designed to mitigate concerns that 

development and implementation of 

cybersecurity plans are expensive and 

time consuming. As ARCC noted, ACF 

recipients ‘‘can meet this metric by 

submitting a single document that 

contains both their cybersecurity risk 

management and supply chain risk 

management plans . . . because 

implementing the NIST Framework for 

Improving Critical Infrastructure 

Cybersecurity . . . includes an 

examination and treatment of supply 

chain risks.’’ The Commission affords 

carriers flexibility to include standards 

and controls in their cybersecurity 

management plans that are reasonably 

tailored to their business needs, and the 

frameworks it utilizes here are 

inherently flexible as well, accounting 

for the needs of entities of all sizes. The 

Commission expects that its approach 

will reduce compliance costs by 

allowing carriers that have already 

implemented the NIST Framework for 

Improving Critical Infrastructure 

Cybersecurity to comply with this 

requirement without redoing their plan 

so long as they implement an 

established set of cybersecurity best 

practices. To further mitigate costs for 

small providers, as suggested by NTCA, 

the Commission encourages Fixed ACF 

recipients and mobile provider support 

recipients to take advantage of existing 

Federal government resources designed 

to share supply chain security risk 

information with trusted 

communications providers and 

suppliers and facilitate the creation of 

cybersecurity and supply-chain risk 

management plans, in addition to the 

growing industry of professional 

consultants helping smaller carriers 

comply with cybersecurity 

requirements.The Commission believes 

that implementation of these 

approaches facilitates the nation’s 

cybersecurity goals and properly 

accommodates recipients of the Alaska 

Connect Fund. 

The Commission sought comment on 

how the proposals and issues discussed 

in the Alaska Connect Fund Notice may 

promote or inhibit advances in 

diversity, equity, inclusion, and 

accessibility, as well as the scope of the 

Commission’s relevant legal authority to 

address any such issues for both fixed 

and mobile services in Alaska. 

Commenters pointed out areas where 

attention to digital equity can improve 

access to advanced telecommunications 

in Alaska. Specifically, AKPIRG pointed 

out that language diversity within the 

state can create barriers to access. ARCC 

agreed with NTCA in the need for 

working collaboratively with state and 

local governments to encourage program 

flexibility to allow for the unique 

situations of different communities. 

ARCC suggested that obligations match 

support amounts, stating that a ‘‘one 

size fits all’’ approach is not one that fits 

the makeup of the state of Alaska. ARCC 

points to differences in middle mile 

costs in Alaska compared to the Lower 

48, suggesting that its Alaska Middle 

Mile Expense Support (AMMES) 

Petition would ‘‘bring positive impacts 

and advancement to diversity and 

equity in remote regions of the state of 

Alaska.’’ ARCC also encourages the 

Commission to use ‘‘discretion and 

flexibility . . . as circumstances vary 

across the country.’’ APT asks the 

Commission to consider the scalability 

of its requirements and the impacts of 

its decisions on small businesses and on 

carriers operating in and servicing 

remote areas of Alaska. The Commission 

finds that its actions in this document 

appropriately address commenters’ 

suggestions. Most notably, the 

Commission takes action to allow WCB 

flexibility to consider a variety of 

providers for Fixed ACF support, and to 

work in collaboration with other Federal 

and state programs to find the 

appropriate solution for Alaska given 

the Commission’s resources. Moreover, 

the overall increase in support amounts 

for both fixed and mobile providers 

allows each recipient the ability recover 

more cost associated with middle mile 

transport, addressing concerns raised in 

ARCC’s petition while continuing to 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2
107224 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 250 / Tuesday, December 31, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

give providers flexibility to use their 

support in the most advantageous ways 

to serve consumers in their respective 

remote regions—including by using 

support from this and other programs to 

connect their networks to areas with 

more competitive transport rates. 

As the Commission continues to 

implement and administer the Alaska 

Connect Fund, it remains mindful of the 

importance of considering how it can 

promote diversity, equity, inclusion, 

and accessibility and the impact its 

rules have on these issues. The 

Commission emphasizes that one of the 

general principles of the USF is to create 

equal access for every consumer in 

America to high-speed broadband in 

underserved and unserved areas. To that 

end, the Commission has long used its 

Universal Service high-cost funding 

programs to further consumer access to 

broadband and bridge the digital divide. 

Most recently, the Commission adopted 

universal service goals for broadband— 

universal deployment, affordability, 

adoption, availability, and equitable 

access to broadband throughout the 

United States. Accordingly, the 

Commission is committed to ensuring 

that the policies and rules it has 

adopted for the Alaska Connect Fund 

remain in accord with the Commission’s 

general efforts to advance digital equity 

for all. 

The Commission notes that the State 

of Alaska has been allocated $567,800 

under the NTIA State Digital Equity 

Planning Grant Program to develop the 

Alaska Digital Equity Plan as well as 

$5,631,769.64 under the NTIA Digital 

Equity Capacity Grant Program, and has 

been working to develop guidelines for 

the in-state grant program. NTIA and the 

State of Alaska are expected to 

distribute funds in the near term. The 

Commission will continue to work 

together with the State to determine 

how its actions can best complement 

those of the state and further digital 

equity across Alaska. 

ARCC filed a petition in November 

2022, requesting the Commission 

initiate a rulemaking to address the 

extremely high costs of middle mile 

transport expenses in Alaska by 

adopting its AMMES to provide funding 

support to carriers servicing locations 

with ultra-high costs. Under the 

AMMES system and its mobile-specific 

Wireless Alaska Middle Mile Expense 

Support (WAMMES) system, eligible 

providers with performance 

commitments from the Alaska Plan, (A– 

CAM, or Connect America Fund (CAF 

II)), may have a portion of their costs 

subsidized for areas in their plans that 

are designated ‘‘ultra-high cost.’’ For 

these ultra-high-cost areas (where 

middle mile costs exceeding $75/Mbps), 

ARCC proposes to have AMMES and 

WAMMES cover a portion of the costs 

of either leasing middle mile capacity 

from a third-party provider, or 

recovering the operating costs of 

facilities constructed by the provider. 

The Commission denies ARCC’s 

AMMES petition in all of its iterations. 

The Commission finds that a guaranteed 

stream of funding with specified 

payment amounts for prices above a 

specific dollar amount only incentivizes 

transport providers to continue to raise 

their rates. The support the Alaska 

Connect Fund offers, in addition to the 

large increase in support reflecting the 

changes discussed above, allows 

providers serving Alaska to address high 

transport rates in two ways. First, 

providers may use funds to build out 

their own transport networks, even in 

ineligible areas, so long as those funds 

are necessary to meet their 

commitments in eligible areas. This 

build-out can include building facilities 

that connect their networks to areas 

where transport is competitively priced. 

Second, by providing Alaska Connect 

Fund support recipients static funding, 

the last-mile provider maintains 

incentives to negotiate aggressively with 

transport providers for lower rates. In 

addition to the mechanisms within the 

Alaska Connect Fund to address this 

issue, the Commission observes that 

there are several other Federal programs 

that can aid the Alaska Connect Fund 

last-mile providers in building out 

infrastructure to connect their service 

areas and run their own transport lines 

to competitively priced transport areas. 

Similar to RUS funded projects, NTIA’s 

BEAD program can indirectly support 

construction of new middle mile 

facilities to meet the increased speed 

goals of that program. Finally, the 

approach that ARCC proposes for 

AMMES is a rate-of-return type 

mechanism. Such mechanisms can lead 

to waste and inefficiency, and the 

Commission has made clear that 

additional rate-of-return regulation is 

not the preferred future direction of the 

high-cost program. For these reasons, 

the Commission denies ARCC’s petition. 

However, the Commission will continue 

to monitor the impact of middle mile 

transport rates on the availability of 

fixed and mobile service in Alaska. 

II. Procedural Matters 

A. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This document does not contain [new 

or modified] information collection 

requirements subject to the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public 

Law 104–13. In addition, therefore, it 

does not contain any new or modified 

information collection burden for small 

business concerns with fewer than 25 

employees, pursuant to the Small 

Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, 

Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 

3506(c)(4). 

B. Congressional Review Act 

The Commission has determined, and 

the Administrator of the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

Office of Management and Budget, 

concurs, that this rule is ‘‘non-major’’ 

under the Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 804(2). The Commission will 

send a copy of the Order to Congress 

and the Government Accountability 

Office pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). 

As required by the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended 

(RFA), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in the 

Alaska Connect Fund Notice released in 

October 2023. The Commission sought 

written public comment on the 

proposals in the Notice, including 

comment on the IRFA. No comments 

were filed addressing the IRFA. This 

present Final Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis conforms to the RFA. 

In this document, the Commission 

adopts several changes to its rules that 

will implement a two-phased 

mechanism to provide universal service 

high-cost support to carriers in Alaska 

for the next ten years under the Alaska 

Connect Fund. The Commission has 

recognized the inherent challenges in 

serving these areas of Alaska and 

understands the necessity in providing 

innovative solutions and unique 

accommodations to residents and 

businesses alike. The Commission also 

recognizes that there are areas of Alaska 

that still lack high-quality affordable 

broadband, where residents may be 

deprived of the opportunity to keep up 

with the advancements in technology 

that Americans living elsewhere benefit 

from. Currently, the Commission 

provides high-cost support to Alaska 

Plan fixed and mobile carriers, ACS, 

and A–CAM carriers. In the 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 this document, the Commission 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 250 / Tuesday, December 31, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 107225 

adopts rules to structure and target 

Alaska Connect Fund support. 

In the fixed portion of the ACF 

Transition, the program adopted in this 

document adjusts current support and 

extends support to current support 

recipients through 2028. In Fixed ACF, 

the Commission directs support for the 

maintenance and operations of alreadybuilt infrastructure through 2034. The 

Commission directs WCB to adopt a 

process for allocating support under 

Fixed ACF. Adopting this program 

structure now will allow for a 

streamlined transition from the current 

support mechanisms to the Alaska 

Connect Fund. Adopting the budget 

now also provides predictability to 

carriers in Alaska that are interested in 

applying for and coordinating funding 

from multiple federal agencies. 

Delegating Fixed ACF allocation and 

processes for fixed services to WCB 

allows the Commission to better meet its 

goal of using USF support effectively, 

allowing time for developing a fuller 

picture of how BEAD funding will be 

allocated in Alaska, and thus preserving 

the flexibility to determine how to 

effectively use high-cost support in 

Alaska to support broadband access for 

Alaskan consumers. 

In this document, the Commission 

adopts a two-area solution for the 

Alaska Connect Fund mobile support in 

high-cost areas through December 31, 

2034, extending support for previous 

recipients of high-cost mobile support 

in Alaska that opt in to receive the 

Alaska Connect Fund, subject to 

conditions. For areas with a single 

supported provider, support received by 

that provider will be extended through 

December 31, 2034, with limited 

exceptions and conditioned on 

improved performance plans consistent 

with BDC data. For duplicate-support 

areas, or areas covered by two or more 

Alaska Plan mobile-provider 

participants, the Commission adopts a 

2-phased approach: an ACF Mobile 

Phase I that extends support for the 

mobile providers receiving support in 

these duplicate-support areas through 

December 31, 2029, and an ACF Mobile 

Phase II, the mechanics of which the 

Commission seeks comment in the 

concurrently adopted FNPRM. This 

document delegates to WTB the 

authority to extend ACF Mobile Phase I 

as needed, or until December 31, 2034, 

in the event that a ACF Mobile Phase II 

is not implemented. 

This framework allows for a period of 

certainty of support so that the mobileprovider participants of the Alaska Plan 

can continue network planning and 

making contractual arrangements in the 

short term, thereby continuing to build 

on the progress and momentum of the 

Alaska Plan. 

Small entities potentially affected by 

the rules herein include Wired 

Telecommunications Carriers, Local 

Exchange Carriers, Incumbent Local 

Exchange Carriers, Competitive Local 

Exchange Carriers, Interexchange 

Carriers, 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), 

Satellite Telecommunications, Wireless 

Telecommunications Carriers (except 

Satellite), All Other 

Telecommunications, Wired Broadband 

internet Access Service Providers, 

Wireless Broadband internet Access 

Service Providers, internet Service 

Providers (Non-Broadband), All Other 

Information Services. 

Small and other recipients of ACF 

Transition support for fixed services are 

already subject to the reporting 

obligations set forth in §§ 54.313, 

54.314, and 54.316 of the Commission’s 

rules, which include broadband 

deployment reporting and certification 

requirements for high-cost recipients, 

and are subject to requirements in 

§§ 54.9, 54.10, and 54.11 of the 

Commission’s rules, which include 

prohibited uses of funds. Small and 

other recipients of Fixed ACF support 

are also subject to the reporting 

obligations set forth in §§ 54.313, 

54.314, and 54.316 of the Commission’s 

rules, and are subject to requirements in 

§§ 54.9, 54.10, and 54.11 of the 

Commission’s rules. 

WCB may adopt network performance 

testing methodologies and noncompliance measures that account for 

unique aspects of service in Alaska. 

Until WCB adopts such methodologies, 

recipients of Fixed ACF shall comply 

with methodologies and noncompliance measures in effect as of the 

date this order was adopted. 

Consistent with the cyber 

requirements in the Enhanced A–CAM 

and BEAD programs, the Commission 

requires small and other Fixed ACF 

support recipients to implement 

operational cybersecurity and supply 

chain risk management plans and certify 

that they have been submitted to USAC 

by January 1, 2029. The Commission 

does not expect that implementing these 

plans will be expensive or time 

consuming for small providers because 

they are appropriately tailored to 

mitigate burdens on small entities while 

maintaining the integrity of our nation’s 

networks. The Commission allows 

providers the flexibility to include 

standards and controls in their 

cybersecurity management plans that 

are reasonably tailored to their business 

needs. The Commission expects that its 

approach will reduce compliance costs 

by allowing carriers that have already 

implemented the NIST Framework for 

Improving Critical Infrastructure 

Cybersecurity to comply with this 

requirement without revising their plan 

so long as they implement an 

established set of cybersecurity best 

practices. Small Fixed ACF recipients 

may take advantage of existing Federal 

government and other online resources 

to facilitate the creation of cybersecurity 

and supply-chain risk management 

plans. 

Small and other recipients of Fixed 

ACF support are subject to the 

compliance measures, recordkeeping 

requirements, and audit requirements 

for high-cost program recipients set 

forth in § 54.320(a) through (c) of the 

Commission’s rules. Small and other 

recipients of Fixed ACF support are also 

subject to the non-compliance measures 

set forth in § 54.320(d) of the 

Commission’s rules, which includes 

notifying the Commission, USAC, and 

relevant state, territory, and Tribal 

governments of any failure to meet 

build-out milestones. 

This document adopts public interest 

obligations, performance requirements, 

and reporting and certification 

requirements for small and other mobile 

participants of the Alaska Connect 

Fund. Eligible participants are initially 

limited to existing mobile participants 

of the Alaska Plan. 

As with the Alaska Plan, the Alaska 

Connect Fund participants are required 

to submit performance plans, which 

must be filed for WTB approval no later 

than September 1, 2026. Mobile Alaska 

Connect Fund performance plans are 

required to be based on the BDC 

standards and coverage as of December 

31, 2024. The performance plans must 

be at the census tract level, and must: 

(1) include the name of the census tract 

that the provider commits to serve; (2) 

include the minimum technology level 

and speed in an outdoor stationary 

environment that the provider commits 

to provide; (3) specify the number of 

hex-9s committed to be covered within 

each census tract at the committed-to 

technology and speed levels, which 

shall be no less than the provider’s 

coverage in the Alaska Plan, minus any 

ineligible areas; and (4) specify how 

many additional hex-9s committed to 

within each census tract at the 

committed-to technology and speed 

levels are comparable hex-9s. The 

Commission delegates authority to WTB 

to adopt requirements and develop data 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2
107226 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 250 / Tuesday, December 31, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

specifications, after appropriate public 

process, concerning the format and 

method of uploading the performance 

plans. Mobile participants must certify 

that they have met the obligations in 

their performance plans no later than 60 

days after the end of their commitment 

deadlines. Those Alaska Connect Fund 

mobile recipients that receive annual 

support of more than $5 million must 

submit with their certification data 

conforming to the BDC Data 

Specifications for Mobile Speed Test 

Data received or used from speed tests 

analyzing network coverage for mobile 

service covering the hex-9s for which 

support was received and showing 

mobile transmissions to and from the 

carrier’s network meeting or exceeding 

the minimum expected download and 

upload speeds in the approved 

performance plan. 

Small and other mobile participants 

are required to continue to meet all of 

the public interest obligations of the 

Alaska Plan, including minimum 

provision of service and reasonably 

comparable services and rates. Where 

WTB approves lesser commitments in a 

provider’s performance plan, the mobile 

provider must certify, by census tract, 

that the basis for which it qualified for 

lesser commitments still applies in the 

previous calendar year and to describe 

on its FCC Form 481 the efforts it has 

taken to improve conditions that served 

as the basis for the lesser commitments. 

When the basis for the lesser 

commitments has changed in the 

previous calendar year, allowing the 

minimum commitments to be achieved 

in the census tract, the mobile provider 

must certify to this in FCC Form 481. 

Where a provider certifies on FCC Form 

481 that conditions have changed such 

that it no longer qualifies for lesser 

commitments in a census tract, the 

provider must submit additional 

information and updated performance 

plans into the Alaska Connect Fund 

docket. Where conditions have changed, 

the mobile provider must submit, for the 

affected census tracts: (i) a description 

of the change; (ii) the date on which the 

change occurred; (iii) the hex-9s within 

the census tract that could be served as 

a result of the changed conditions; and 

(iv) revised performance commitments 

factoring in the change. These filings 

must be made simultaneously with the 

submission of the FCC Form 481. 

Additionally, similar to the 

compliance obligations for fixed 

providers mentioned in this document, 

all mobile providers must implement 

operational cybersecurity and supply 

chain risk management plans by 

December 31, 2029, or within 30 days 

after approval under the PRA, 

whichever is later. Plans must be 

submitted to USAC, WTB, and the 

PSHSB by December 31, 2029; and must 

reflect established cybersecurity best 

practices that address each of the Core 

Functions described in the NIST 

Framework, such as the standards and 

controls set forth in the CISA CPGs or 

the CIS Controls. The Commission 

delegates authority to WTB in 

consultation with PSHSB to update 

these requirement through notice and 

comment process. 

Alaska Connect Fund mobile 

providers are also required to submit 

information about all backhaul and 

middle mile, regardless of technology, 

and the name of the middle mile 

provider(s) from which the last-mile 

Alaska Connect Fund mobile provider 

leases links. Providers will be allowed 

but not required to submit data 

regarding the price the provider pays 

per Mbps along each link. 

In addition, small and other recipients 

of Alaska Connect Fund support for 

mobile services shall continue to be 

subject to the reporting obligations set 

forth in §§ 54.308, 54.313, 54.314, 

54.320(d), and 54.321 of the 

Commission’s rules, as amended, 

§ 54.318, and be subject to the 

requirements in §§ 54.9, 54.10, and 

54.11 of the Commission’s rules. Such 

recipients are also required to submit on 

an annual basis all of the infrastructure 

data that providers would submit as part 

of the BDC mobile verification process 

for all cell sites and antennas that serve 

an Alaska Connect Fund mobile support 

recipient’s supported area for coverage 

as of December 31 of each year. These 

Alaska Connect Fund recipients of 

mobile support must submit these data 

to WTB by the following March 1 based 

on their instructions and specifications. 

The RFA requires an agency to 

provide ‘‘a description of the steps the 

agency has taken to minimize the 

significant economic impact on small 

entities . . . including a statement of 

the factual, policy, and legal reasons for 

selecting the alternative adopted in the 

final rule and why each one of the other 

significant alternatives to the rule 

considered by the agency which affect 

the impact on small entities was 

rejected.’’ 

In reaching its final conclusions and 

through its actions in this proceeding, 

the Commission has considered the 

economic impact of, and alternatives to, 

proposals that may affect small entities. 

The rules that the Commission adopts in 

this document will benefit small and 

other entities by balancing its 

requirement to provide support that is 

sufficient to achieve the Commission’s 

universal service goals, while also 

providing appropriate incentives for 

prudent and efficient expenditures. The 

Commission adopts a two-phase Alaska 

Connect Fund, in which ACF Transition 

support increases current funding and 

extends funding to harmonize the end 

point of multiple current funding 

programs, providing certainty and 

increased funding for current recipients, 

including small entities. The 

Commission considered alternatives for 

raising support amounts annually but 

declined this approach to ensure 

certainty and predictability in funding 

for carriers. Fixed ACF will establish a 

future funding mechanism to support 

the continued provision of broadband 

services in Alaska by all providers, 

including small entities. For mobile 

providers, this document adopts a twoarea solution, extending support with 

updated performance obligations for 

single-support areas, while considering 

alternatives for and extending support 

for areas with duplicate support in the 

short term, and seeking comment on the 

appropriate methodology for 

eliminating duplicative support for 

these areas in the FNPRM. The updated 

support system will improve upon the 

successes of the Alaska Plan while 

addressing many concerns that 

diminished providers’ efficient use of 

their support to serve their existing 

networks and expand their coverage 

areas. As the majority of the eligible 

participants for ACF extended support 

meet fall under the SBA size standard 

for small businesses as wireless 

telecommunications carriers, the 

adopted system was inherently designed 

with consideration to those entities. 

The Commission considered 

alternatives raised by commenters to 

eliminate the requirement that providers 

must be an ETC, consistent with the 

existing rules, to be eligible to receive 

Alaska Connect Fund support, but 

instead retain this requirement for 

statutory reasons. Some commenters 

expressed concerns that requiring 

cybersecurity and risk management 

plans may be too costly and 

burdensome for small rural carriers. As 

discussed in this document, the rules 

provide flexibility for small providers to 

design these plans and various 

resources are available to reduce the 

cost of developing these plans. Further, 

the cybersecurity and risk management 

compliance obligations are similar to 

those for existing support programs and 

necessary to maintain the integrity of 

our nation’s networks. 

To the extent the Commission retains 

certification and reporting requirements, 

it finds that the importance of 

monitoring the use of the public’s funds 

outweighs the burden of filing the 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 250 / Tuesday, December 31, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 107227 

required information on small and other 

entities, particularly because much of 

the information that the Commission 

requires them to report is information it 

expects they already collect to ensure 

they comply with the existing terms and 

conditions of support. 

III. Ordering Clauses 

Accordingly, it is ordered that, 

pursuant to the authority contained in 

sections 4(i), 5, 201, 205, 214, 254, 

303(r), 403, and 1302 of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 155, 201, 

205, 214, 254, 303(r), 403, and 1302 the 

Order is adopted. The Order shall be 

effective thirty days after publication in 

the Federal Register. 

It is further ordered that part 54 of the 

Commission’s rules, 47 CFR pt. 54, is 

amended as set forth in this document. 

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 54 

Communications common carriers, 

Health facilities, Infants and children, 

internet, Libraries, Alaska, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, 

Schools, Telecommunications, 

Telephone, High-Cost, Broadband. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene Dortch, 

Secretary. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Federal Communications 

Commission amends 47 CFR part 54 as 

follows: 

PART 54—UNIVERSAL SERVICE 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 54 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 155, 201, 

205, 214, 219, 220, 229, 254, 303(r), 403, 

1004, 1302, 1601–1609, and 1752, unless 

otherwise noted. 

■ 2. Amend § 54.306 by revising 

paragraph (c) introductory text and 

adding paragraph (e) to read as follows: 

§ 54.306 Alaska Plan for Rate-of-Return 

Carriers Serving Alaska. 

* * * * * 

(c) Support amounts and support 

term. For a period of 8 years beginning 

on or after January 1, 2017, at a date set 

by the Wireline Competition Bureau, 

each Alaska Plan participant shall 

receive monthly Alaska Plan support in 

an amount equal to: 

* * * * * 

(e) Alaska Connect Fund Transition 

support. Beginning January 1, 2025, and 

ending December 31, 2028, an Alaska 

Plan rate-of-return carrier (as that term 

is defined in § 54.5) serving Alaska that 

elected support pursuant to paragraph 

(a) of this section shall be authorized to 

receive an amount of monthly support 

during the Alaska Connect Fund 

Transition equal to the amount 

authorized as of December 1, 2024, 

multiplied by 1.30. 

■ 3. Amend § 54.308 by revising 

paragraph (c), redesignating paragraph 

(e) as paragraph (g), and adding new 

paragraph (e) and paragraphs (f) and (h) 

to read as follows: 

§ 54.308 Broadband public interest 

obligations for recipients of high-cost 

support. 

* * * * * 

(c) Alaska Plan recipients. Alaskan 

rate-of-return carriers receiving support 

from the Alaska Plan pursuant to 

§ 54.306 are exempt from paragraph (a) 

of this section and are instead required 

to offer voice and broadband service 

with latency suitable for real-time 

applications, including Voice over 

internet Protocol, and usage capacity 

that is reasonably comparable to 

comparable offerings in urban areas, at 

rates that are reasonably comparable to 

rates for comparable offerings in urban 

areas, subject to any limitations in 

access to backhaul as described in 

§ 54.313(g). Alaska Plan recipients’ 

specific broadband deployment and 

speed obligations shall be governed by 

the terms of their approved performance 

plans as described in § 54.306(b). Alaska 

Plan recipients must also comply with 

paragraph (b) of this section. 

* * * * * 

(e) Minimum provision of service. 

Mobile providers receiving support from 

the Alaska Connect Fund must provide 

service at the same minimum service 

levels as required under the Alaska Plan 

and may not provide less coverage or 

provide service using a less advanced 

technology than the provider committed 

to under the Alaska Plan. 

(1) This includes continuing to 

provide voice service, maintaining at 

least the level of data service the mobile 

provider offered to its previous coverage 

area as of the end of the Alaska Plan, 

and improving service consistent with 

the mobile provider’s approved 

performance plan through the end of 

Alaska Connect Fund. 

(2) The Wireless Telecommunications 

Bureau in coordination with the Office 

of Economics and Analytics have 

authority to compare Broadband Data 

Collection availability data as of 

December 31, 2026, with subsequent 

Broadband Data Collection availability 

data to ensure that mobile voice and 

mobile broadband service levels and 

coverage are maintained or improved in 

all previously served areas. 

(f) Reasonably comparable services 

and rates. A mobile provider that is 

receiving support from the Alaska 

Connect Fund pursuant to § 54.318 shall 

certify in its annual compliance filings 

that its rates are reasonably comparable 

to rates for comparable offerings in the 

Cellular Market Area (CMA) for 

Anchorage, Alaska. An Alaska Connect 

Fund mobile provider must also 

demonstrate compliance in duplicatesupport areas by December 31, 2029, 

and in single support areas by December 

31, 2029, December 31, 2031, and 

December 31, 2034, by showing that it 

publishes, on its publicly accessible 

website at least one mobile broadband 

plan and at least one stand-alone voice 

plan that meets the following 

requirements: 

(1) Is substantially similar to a service 

plan offered by at least one different 

mobile provider in the CMA for 

Anchorage, Alaska, and 

(2) Is offered for the same or a lower 

rate than the matching plan in the CMA 

for Anchorage. 

(3) This demonstration must include 

usage allowances for the comparable 

plans in Anchorage. 

(4) The Wireless Telecommunications 

Bureau may employ alternative 

benchmarks or dates appropriate for 

specific competitive Eligible 

Telecommunications Carriers in 

assessing carrier offerings. Participants 

in the Alaska Connect Fund may not 

cite their own plans in Anchorage as 

evidence of meeting the reasonably 

comparable rate condition. 

* * * * * 

(h) Alaska Connect Fund mobile 

provider cybersecurity and supply chain 

risk management requirements. (1) An 

Alaska Connect Fund mobile support 

recipient must implement operational 

cybersecurity and supply chain risk 

management plans meeting the 

requirements of this section as a 

condition of receiving Alaska Connect 

Fund support. All mobile provider 

recipients must implement their 

cybersecurity and supply chain risk 

management plans by December 31, 

2029. 

(2) An Alaska Connect Fund mobile 

support recipient must certify that it has 

implemented the plans required under 

paragraph (h)(1) of this section and must 

submit the plans to the Administrator 

by December 31, 2029, or within 30 

days of approval under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act, whichever is later. 

(3) An Alaska Connect Fund mobile 

support recipient that fails to comply 

with any Alaska Connect Fund 

cybersecurity or supply chain risk 

management requirement is subject to 

the following non-compliance measures: 

(i) The Wireless Telecommunications 

Bureau shall direct the Administrator to 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2
107228 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 250 / Tuesday, December 31, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

withhold 25 percent of the Alaska 

Connect Fund support recipient’s 

monthly support for failure to comply 

with paragraphs (h)(1) and (2) of this 

section until the support recipient 

comes into compliance. 

(ii) At any time during the support 

term, if an Alaska Connect Fund mobile 

support recipient does not have in place 

operational cybersecurity and supply 

chain risk management plans meeting 

the requirements of this section, the 

Wireless Telecommunications Bureau 

shall direct the Administrator to 

withhold 25 percent of the support 

recipient’s monthly support. 

(iii) Once the Alaska Connect Fund 

mobile support recipient comes into 

compliance, the Administrator shall 

stop withholding support, and the 

support recipient will receive all of the 

support that had been withheld 

pursuant to this section. 

(4) An Alaska Connect Fund mobile 

support recipient’s cybersecurity risk 

management plan must reflect at least 

the National Institute of Standards and 

Technology (NIST) Framework for 

Improving Critical Infrastructure 

Cybersecurity v.1.1 (2018) (NIST 

Framework) or any successor version of 

the NIST Framework, that may be 

adopted by the Wireline Competition 

Bureau, the Wireless 

Telecommunications Bureau, and the 

Public Safety and Homeland Security 

Bureau after notice and comment, and 

must reflect established cybersecurity 

best practices that address each of the 

Core Functions described in the NIST 

Framework, such as the standards and 

controls set forth in the Cybersecurity & 

Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) 

Cybersecurity Cross-sector Performance 

Goals and Objectives or the Center for 

internet Security Critical Security 

Controls. 

(5) An Alaska Connect Fund mobile 

support recipient’s supply chain risk 

management plan must reflect the key 

practices discussed in NISTIR 8276, Key 

Practices in Cyber Supply Chain Risk 

Management: Observations from 

Industry, and related supply chain risk 

management guidance from NIST 800– 

161. 

(6) If an Alaska Connect Fund mobile 

support recipient makes a substantive 

modification to a plan under this 

section, the provider must file an 

updated plan with the Administrator 

within 30 days of making the 

modification. A modification to a plan 

under this section is substantive if at 

least one of the following conditions 

apply: 

(i) There is a change in the plan’s 

scope, including any addition, removal, 

or significant alteration to the types of 

risks covered by the plan (e.g., 

expanding a plan to cover new areas, 

such as supply chain risks to Internet of 

Things devices or cloud security, could 

be a substantive change); 

(ii) There is a change in the plan’s risk 

mitigation strategies (e.g., implementing 

a new encryption protocol or deploying 

a different firewall architecture); 

(iii) There is a shift in organizational 

structure (e.g., creating a new 

information technology department or 

hiring a Chief Information Security 

Officer); 

(iv) There is a shift in the threat 

landscape prompting the organization to 

recognize that emergence of new threats 

or vulnerabilities that were not 

previously accounted for in the plan; 

(v) Updates are made to comply with 

new cybersecurity regulations, 

standards, or laws; 

(vi) Significant changes are made in 

the supply chain, including offboarding 

major suppliers or vendors, or shifts in 

procurement strategies that may impact 

the security of the supply chain; or 

(vii) A large-scale technological 

change is made, including the adoption 

of new systems or technologies, 

migrating to a new information 

technology infrastructure, or 

significantly changing the information 

technology architecture. 

■ 4. Amend § 54.310 by adding 

paragraph (i) to read as follows: 

§ 54.310 Connect America Fund for Price 

Cap Territories—Phase II. 

* * * * * 

(i) Alaska Connect Fund Transition 

support. Beginning January 1, 2025 and 

ending December 31, 2028, any price 

cap carrier serving Alaska that elected to 

receive Connect America Phase II frozen 

support amounts in lieu of model-based 

support, and is authorized to receive 

support as of December 31, 2024, shall 

be authorized to receive an amount of 

monthly support during the ACF 

Transition equal to the amount of 

monthly support authorized as of 

December 1, 2024, multiplied by 1.30. 

■ 5. Amend § 54.311 by adding 

paragraph (g) to read as follows: 

§ 54.311 Connect America Fund 

Alternative-Connect America Cost Model 

Support. 

* * * * * 

(g) Alaska Connect Fund Transition 

support. Beginning January 1, 2025, and 

ending December 31, 2028, an A–CAM 

carrier that serves the State of Alaska 

that has made an election of support 

pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section 

and is authorized to receive support as 

of December 31, 2024, shall be 

authorized to receive an amount of 

monthly support during the ACF 

Transition equal to the amount of 

monthly support authorized as of 

December 1, 2024, multiplied by 1.30. 

■ 6. Amend § 54.313 by revising 

paragraph (f)(3) and adding paragraph 

(r) to read as follows: 

§ 54.313 Annual reporting requirements 

for high-cost recipients. 

* * * * * 

(f) * * * 

(3) Rate-of-return carriers 

participating in the Alaska Plan must 

certify as to whether any terrestrial 

backhaul or other satellite backhaul 

became commercially available in the 

previous calendar year in areas that 

were previously served exclusively by 

performance-limiting satellite backhaul. 

To the extent that such new terrestrial 

backhaul facilities are constructed, or 

other satellite backhaul becomes 

commercially available, or existing 

facilities improve sufficiently to meet 

the relevant speed, latency and capacity 

requirements then in effect for 

broadband service supported by the 

Alaska Plan, the funding recipient must 

provide a description of the backhaul 

technology, the date at which that 

backhaul was made commercially 

available to the carrier, and the number 

of locations that are newly served by the 

new terrestrial backhaul or other 

satellite backhaul. Within twelve 

months of the new backhaul facilities 

becoming commercially available, 

through December 31, 2026, funding 

recipients must certify that they are 

offering broadband service with latency 

suitable for real-time applications, 

including Voice over internet Protocol, 

and with usage capacity that is 

reasonably comparable to comparable 

offerings in urban areas. Funding 

recipients’ minimum speed deployment 

obligations will be reassessed as 

specified by the Commission. 

* * * * * 

(r) In addition to the information and 

certifications in paragraph (a) of this 

section, any competitive eligible 

telecommunications carrier 

participating in the mobile portion of 

the Alaska Connect Fund must provide 

the following: 

(1) Where WTB, in coordination with 

OEA, has approved lesser commitments 

in a mobile provider’s performance plan 

than the minimum deployment goals 

under the mobile portion of the Alaska 

Connect Fund, as set forth in 

§ 54.318(f)(5), for all or a certain portion 

of the provider’s service area, the 

provider must certify, by census tract, 

that the basis for which it qualified for 

lesser commitments still applies in the 

previous calendar year and describe on 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 250 / Tuesday, December 31, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 107229 

FCC Form 481 the efforts it has taken to 

improve conditions that served as the 

basis for the lesser commitments. When 

the basis for the lesser commitments has 

changed in the previous calendar year, 

allowing the minimum commitments to 

be achieved in the census tract, the 

mobile provider must certify to this in 

FCC Form 481. 

(2) Where a provider certifies on FCC 

Form 481 that conditions have changed 

such that it no longer qualifies for lesser 

commitments in a census tract, the 

provider must submit additional 

information and updated performance 

plans into the Alaska Connect Fund 

docket via the FCC Electronic Comment 

Filing System. Where conditions have 

changed, the mobile provider must 

submit, for the affected census tracts: 

(i) A description of the change; 

(ii) The date on which the change 

occurred; 

(iii) The resolution 9 hexagons (hex9s) using the H3 standardized geospatial 

indexing system as defined in 47 CFR 

1.7001(a)(20) within the census tract 

that could be served as a result of the 

changed conditions; and 

(iv) Revised performance 

commitments factoring in the change. 

These filings must be made 

simultaneously with the submission of 

the FCC Form 481. A mobile provider 

may seek confidential treatment of 

information required in this section if 

the conditions for confidentiality are 

met. 

■ 7. Amend § 54.316 by revising 

paragraph (a) introductory text, adding 

a reserved paragraph (a)(9) and 

paragraph (a)(10), and revising 

paragraph(c)(1) introductory text to read 

as follows: 

§ 54.316 Broadband deployment reporting 

and certification requirements for high-cost 

recipients. 

(a) Broadband deployment reporting. 

Rate-of Return ETCs, ETCs that elect to 

receive Connect America Phase II 

model-based support, competitive ETCs 

receiving mobile support from the 

Alaska Connect Fund, and ETCs 

awarded support to serve fixed locations 

through a competitive bidding process 

shall have the following broadband 

reporting obligations: 

* * * * * 

(9) [Reserved] 

(10) Mobile providers subject to the 

requirements of § 54.318 shall submit 

backhaul and middle mile maps 

covering eligible areas. At the end of 

any calendar year for which backhaul 

and middle-mile facilities were 

deployed, these recipients shall also 

submit updated maps showing backhaul 

and middle-mile facilities that are or 

will be used to support their services in 

eligible areas. Where the recipient leases 

links, the recipient must provide the 

name of the middle-mile provider(s) 

that the recipient leases links from per 

area. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(1) Price cap carriers that accepted 

Phase II model-based support, rate-ofreturn carriers, ETCs receiving Alaska 

Connect Fund mobile support, and 

recipients of Rural Digital Opportunity 

Fund support must submit the annual 

reporting information required by 

March 1 as described in paragraphs (a) 

and (b) of this section. Eligible 

telecommunications carriers that file 

their reports after the March 1 deadline 

shall receive a reduction in support 

pursuant to the following schedule: 

* * * * * 

■ 8. Add § 54.318 to read as follows: 

§ 54.318 Alaska Connect Fund for 

competitive eligible telecommunications 

carriers receiving mobile support. 

(a) Carriers eligible for extended 

support. A competitive eligible 

telecommunications carrier previously 

receiving support for remote Alaska 

pursuant to § 54.317(e) shall be eligible 

for extended support, if in compliance 

with other eligibility requirements. 

(1) An Alaska Plan mobile provider 

that opts into the Alaska Connect Fund 

may have its Alaska Connect Fund 

support delayed, or may be deemed 

ineligible to participate in the Alaska 

Connect Fund, if the Wireless 

Telecommunication Bureau determines 

that the mobile provider has failed to 

comply with the public interest 

obligations or other terms and 

conditions of the Alaska Plan or its 

Alaska Plan commitments, or failed to 

meet an Alaska Plan build-out 

milestone. 

(2) The Wireless Telecommunications 

Bureau may determine whether an 

Alaska Plan mobile provider is 

ineligible for the Alaska Connect Fund, 

ineligible for specific coverage areas, or 

will have its Alaska Connect Fund 

support delayed until it meets its 

outstanding obligations, based on the 

mobile provider’s compliance with 

Alaska Plan and Broadband Data 

Collection obligations. 

(b) Election of extended support. 

Subject to the requirements of this 

section, competitive eligible 

telecommunications carriers receiving 

support for mobile service pursuant to 

§ 54.317(e) may opt into an extension of 

that support under the Alaska Connect 

Fund by submitting their performance 

plans, consistent with the requirements 

of this section, on or before September 

1, 2026, to the Wireless 

Telecommunications Bureau for 

approval. Mobile providers exercising 

this option with approved performance 

plans shall have extended support 

beginning on January 1, 2027. Mobile 

providers receiving support pursuant to 

§ 54.317(e) that do not opt into extended 

ACF support will have their support 

end with the Alaska Plan on December 

31, 2026, as set forth in paragraph (i) of 

this section. 

(c) Eligible areas—(1) Areas eligible 

for support. Extended support under the 

Alaska Connect Fund may be used to 

support mobile service in all of Alaska, 

except: 

(i) Previously ineligible areas under 

the Alaska Plan 

(A) Nonremote areas, as defined in 

§ 54.307(e)(3)(i); 

(B) Areas as of December 31, 2014, 

that received 4G LTE service directly 

from mobile providers that were either 

unsubsidized or ineligible to claim the 

delayed phase down under 

§ 54.307(e)(3) and covering, in the 

aggregate, at least 85 percent of the 

population of the census block; 

(ii) Competitive areas, as defined as: 

(A) Areas with an unsubsidized 

mobile provider offering 5G–NR service 

at minimum speeds of 7⁄1 Mbps in an 

outdoor stationary environment based 

on mobile providers’ Broadband Data 

Collection availability data as of 

December 31, 2024; or 

(B) Areas with three or more mobile 

providers—with at least one of those 

mobile providers being unsubsidized— 

offering at least 4G LTE service at 

minimum speeds of 5⁄1 Mbps in an 

outdoor stationary environment based 

on mobile providers’ Broadband Data 

Collection availability data as of 

December 31, 2024. 

(iii) Areas deemed inaccessible or 

unsafe for testing by the Wireless 

Telecommunications Bureau, in 

coordination with the Office of 

Economics and Analytics, and reflected 

in the Eligible-Areas Map, as described 

in paragraph (c)(2) of this section. 

(2) Eligible-areas map. The Wireless 

Telecommunications Bureau in 

coordination with the Office of 

Economics and Analytics will publish a 

map or maps of which areas are eligible 

and ineligible for Alaska Connect Fund 

mobile support, and of those that are 

eligible, which are in duplicate-support 

areas, single-support areas, or other 

eligible areas, as defined in paragraph 

(d)(1) of this section. The map or maps 

will identify all such areas on a 

resolution 9 hexagon (hex-9) basis using 

the H3 standardized geospatial indexing 

system as defined in 47 CFR 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2
107230 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 250 / Tuesday, December 31, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

1.7001(a)(20). Competitive eligible 

telecommunications carriers seeking 

mobile support under the Alaska 

Connect Fund must use the Eligibleareas map to determine the areas in 

Alaska that are eligible for support. The 

Wireless Telecommunications Bureau in 

coordination with the Office of 

Economics and Analytics may resolve 

any disputes that may arise over the 

classification of an area and may 

periodically update the map(s) 

throughout the course of the Alaska 

Connect Fund, as necessary. Providers 

are to communicate which areas should 

be deemed ineligible by emailing ACF@

fcc.gov as soon as such areas are known 

by the provider. 

(d) Support amounts and support 

term. Support for Alaska Connect Fund 

will begin January 1, 2027, and the 

initial support under the Alaska 

Connect Fund will act as an extension 

of support (extended support) to Alaska 

Connect Fund single- and duplicatesupport areas after the Alaska Plan ends. 

(1) Areas. (i) Support areas are areas 

covered by one Alaska Plan mobileprovider participant. 

(ii) Duplicate-support areas are areas 

covered by two or more Alaska Plan 

mobile provider participants. 

(iii) Eligible areas that are not 

identified as a duplicate-support or 

single-support areas will be noted as 

‘‘other eligible areas,’’ until otherwise 

classified throughout the course of the 

Alaska Connect Fund. 

(iv) Areas that are ineligible under the 

Alaska Connect Fund are not considered 

to be single- or duplicate-support areas, 

and mobile participants under the 

Alaska Connect Fund cannot use their 

support to provide mobile service in 

these areas. 

(2) Extended support. (i) Singlesupport areas will receive extended 

support until December 31, 2034. 

(ii) Duplicate-support areas will 

receive extended support until 

December 31, 2029, unless otherwise 

extended by the Wireless 

Telecommunications Bureau. 

(e) Use of support. Support allocated 

through the Alaska Connect Fund may 

only be used to provide mobile voice 

and mobile broadband service in 

eligible areas. Alaska Connect Fund 

recipients may use their support for 

both operating expenses and capital 

expenses for deploying, upgrading, and 

maintaining mobile voice and 

broadband-capable networks, including 

middle-mile improvements needed to 

those ends. As long as an Alaska 

Connect Fund recipient is providing 

service to its awarded area consistent 

with its public interest obligations 

service expenditures in that area will be 

eligible for support. Expenditures for 

middle-mile facilities may occur outside 

of eligible areas, so long as they are 

necessary to provide mobile voice and 

broadband service in the areas where 

the Alaska Connect Fund recipient 

receives support. 

(f) Performance plans. In order to 

receive extended support pursuant to 

this section, a competitive eligible 

telecommunications carrier must be 

subject to a performance plan approved 

by the Wireless Telecommunications 

Bureau. The performance plan must 

indicate specific deployment obligations 

and performance requirements 

sufficient to demonstrate that support is 

being used in the public interest and in 

accordance with this section and the 

requirements adopted by the 

Commission for the Alaska Connect 

Fund. 

(1) Performance plans must: 

(i) Include the name of the census 

tract(s) the mobile provider commits to 

serve; 

(ii) Include the minimum technology 

level and speed in an outdoor stationary 

environment the mobile provider 

commits to provide; 

(iii) Specify the number of hex-9s 

committed to be covered within each 

census tract at the committed-to 

technology and speed levels, which 

shall be no less than the mobile 

provider’s coverage in the Alaska Plan, 

minus any ineligible areas; and 

(iv) Specify the number of additional 

hex-9s committed to within each census 

tract at the committed-to technology and 

speed levels that are comparable hex-9s 

as described in paragraph (h) of this 

section. 

(2) A mobile provider must commit to 

cover any eligible hex-9 in its support 

area and may commit to cover any 

eligible hex-9 not covered by other 

mobile providers. 

(3) Providers are to reflect the 

additional coverage that is required to 

retain support due to areas being 

deemed ineligible solely in the 

comparable hex-9 category of their 

performance plans, consistent with 

paragraph (h) of this section. 

(4) The Wireless Telecommunications 

Bureau will adopt requirements and 

develop data specifications, after 

appropriate public process, concerning 

the format and method of uploading 

Alaska Connect Fund performance 

plans. 

(5) Alaska Connect Fund performance 

plan submissions are due September 1, 

2026. Separate performance plans are 

required for single-support areas and for 

duplicate-support areas. A mobile 

provider’s Alaska Connect Fund support 

may not begin until the Wireless 

Telecommunications Bureau approves 

the performance plan of the mobile 

provider. The Wireless 

Telecommunications Bureau may 

require the filing of revised 

commitments at other times if justified 

by developments that occur after the 

approval of the initial performance 

commitments, including requiring, after 

notice and comment, additional 

commitments in duplicate-support areas 

that must be met by December 31, 2034, 

if Alaska Connect Fund Mobile Phase I 

is extended in those areas. 

(6) Where technically and financially 

feasible, providers in single-support 

areas are expected to extend 5G service 

to populations who are currently served 

by 4G LTE or less, and providers in 

duplicate-support areas are expected to 

work to extend by the end of December 

2029 at least 4G LTE at 5⁄1 Mbps in an 

outdoor stationary environment to areas 

where they do not currently offer it. For 

single-support areas, providers 

participating in the Alaska Connect 

Fund are expected to use Alaska 

Connect Fund support to upgrade 

service beyond the service commitment 

level they made in the Alaska Plan, with 

an ultimate goal of achieving 5G NR at 

35/3 Mbps in single-support areas, 

where technically and financially 

feasible, by the end of December 2034. 

Providers in single-support areas are to 

report to WTB the progress they have 

made beyond Alaska Plan service levels 

by December 31, 2029, and to meet their 

commitments by the December 31, 2031, 

interim milestone and the December 31, 

2034, final milestone. 

(7) The Wireless Telecommunications 

Bureau may approve lower technology 

and speeds than the minimum 

technology and speeds specified in this 

section, in some areas as warranted on 

a case-by-case basis. A mobile provider 

must explicitly state the reason it cannot 

commit to the minimum deployment 

requirement as a notation under the 

proposed performance plan for each 

census tract. The Wireless 

Telecommunications Bureau has 

discretion to determine whether the 

request is adequately justified and if so, 

to approve the performance plan. If 

conditions change such that a mobile 

provider no longer qualifies for lesser 

commitments in a census tract, the 

provider must submit additional 

information and updated performance 

plans into the Alaska Connect Fund 

docket via the FCC Electronic Comment 

Filing System. Where conditions have 

changed, the mobile provider must 

submit, for the affected census tracts: 

(i) A description of the change; 

(ii) The date on which the change 

occurred; 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 250 / Tuesday, December 31, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 107231 

(iii) The resolution 9 hexagons (hex9s) using the H3 standardized geospatial 

indexing system as defined in 47 CFR 

1.7001(a)(20) within the census tract 

that could be served as a result of the 

changed conditions; and 

(iv) Revised performance 

commitments factoring in the change. 

These filings must be made 

simultaneously with the submission of 

the FCC Form 481. A mobile provider 

may seek confidential treatment of 

information required in this section if 

the conditions for confidentiality are 

met. 

(8) Initial Alaska Connect Fund 

performance plans must rely on 

Broadband Data Collection availability 

data and data standards on which the 

National Broadband Map is based and 

on mobile providers’ availability data in 

Alaska as of December 31, 2024. 

Consistent with Broadband Data 

Collection requirements, as provided in 

47 CFR 1.7004, all Alaska Connect Fund 

mobile support recipients must show 

that consumers can receive the 

minimum technology level and speed 

with a cell edge probability of not less 

than 90% and a cell loading of not less 

than 50%. 

(9) If any mobile providers do not 

have their performance plans approved 

by the Wireless Telecommunications 

Bureau by December 31, 2026, those 

mobile providers’ support may be 

delayed. 

(10) No later than 60 days after the 

end of each participating mobile 

provider’s commitment (milestone) 

deadline, it must submit a certification 

that it has met the obligations contained 

in the performance plan approved by 

the Wireless Telecommunications 

Bureau, including any obligations 

pursuant to a revised approved 

performance plan, and that it has met 

the requisite public interest obligations 

contained in the Alaska Connect Fund 

Order. 

(11) The Wireless 

Telecommunications Bureau may raise 

the technology and performance floor, 

as appropriate, after opportunity for 

public notice and comment, during the 

course of the Alaska Connect Fund. 

(g) Deemed covered. The geographic 

areas identified as eligible for support 

for Alaska Connect Fund mobile 

recipients will be made available by the 

Wireless Telecommunications Bureau in 

coordination with the Office of 

Economics and Analytics in the 

Eligible-Areas Map defined in paragraph 

(c)(2) of this section in the form of 

hexagons at the resolution 9 level (hex9s) using the H3 standardized geospatial 

indexing system as defined in 47 CFR 

1.7001(a)(20). 

(1) Hex-9s will be deemed covered 

using the following process: 

(i) Overlay resolution 11 hexagons 

(hex-11s) on the ‘‘raw’’ mobile coverage 

polygons submitted in the Broadband 

Data Collection in Alaska. If the 

centroid (i.e., the geographic center 

point) of the hex-11 overlaps any of 

those boundaries, then the entire hex-11 

is considered covered by that boundary 

and ‘‘served’’. 

(ii) Divide the number of served 

grandchild hex-11s belonging to the 

grandparent hex-9 by the total number 

of grandchild hex-11s belonging to the 

grandparent hex-9 to determine the 

percentage of the hex-9 that is 

considered served. The centroid of a 

hex-11 must fall within the boundary of 

Alaska to be included in this 

calculation. 

(iii) If at least 70% of the grandchild 

hex-11s belonging to a grandparent hex9 are served, then the entire hex-9 will 

be considered served. 

(h) Comparable areas. Mobile 

providers that received support under 

the Alaska Plan for coverage of newly 

ineligible areas and that wish to retain 

their support level must use their 

Alaska Connect Fund support to cover 

a comparable number of otherwise 

uncovered hex-9s elsewhere, subject to 

claw back in their support if they do not 

do so. Mobile providers must 

incorporate their comparable areas into 

their performance plans under the 

Alaska Connect Fund for Wireless 

Telecommunications Bureau approval. 

Specifically, each mobile provider must 

remove the ineligible hex-9s from its 

commitment, and in a separate category 

in the performance plan, specify how 

many comparable hex-9s it commits to 

cover, by census tract. 

(1) For areas where a mobile provider 

may lose support because an area is 

deemed ineligible after the provider’s 

Alaska Connect Fund performance plan 

has been approved, the mobile provider 

will have an opportunity to retain 

support by committing to cover a 

comparable number of uncovered hex9s elsewhere. As mobile providers 

discover ineligible hex-9s after their 

performance plans are approved, they 

must remove those ineligible hex-9s 

from their hex-9 commitments in their 

performance plans and reflect the new 

number of comparable hex-9s in the 

comparable hex-9 commitments 

category in their new, proposed 

performance plans. The mobile provider 

must submit new performance plans 

whenever they need new comparable 

hex-9s approved. The mobile provider 

must provide a notation in the 

performance plan for the comparable 

hex-9s, identifying which census tracts 

the ineligible hex-9s are located and 

how many of those hex-9s are being 

replaced by any particular group of 

comparable hex-9s. The Wireless 

Telecommunications Bureau, in 

coordination with the Office of 

Economics and Analytics, may require 

additional clarifying information that 

allows identification and determination 

of which comparable hex-9s are 

replacing which group of ineligible hex9s. All inaccessible hex-9s and updated 

performance plans must be reported 

before their buildout milestones. 

(2) Where a mobile provider commits 

to cover the same number of uncovered 

hex-9s as the area that was newly 

deemed ineligible, the coverage shall be 

deemed comparable. 

(3) Where a mobile provider claims 

that fewer uncovered hex-9s should be 

deemed as comparable to the number of 

hex-9s deemed ineligible, the provider 

must provide justification that the 

smaller number of hex-9s is comparable 

to the number of hex-9s that the 

provider was using support to cover. 

The Wireless Telecommunications 

Bureau, in coordination with the Office 

of Economics and Analytics, may 

determine whether a mobile provider is 

covering a comparable number of hex9s. 

(4) Once approved, comparable areas 

will be treated as part of the mobile 

provider’s single-support areas, subject 

to the deployment obligations and 

performance requirements that apply for 

those areas. 

(5) Where an Alaska Connect Fund 

mobile support recipient covers a new, 

uncovered hex-9, it will be considered 

a single-support area attributed to the 

mobile provider that showed coverage 

to that hex-9 first, based on Broadband 

Data Collection availability data, or, in 

case more than one mobile provider 

provided coverage for the same area in 

the same data set or one provider’s 

earlier filed data is deemed inaccurate, 

whichever provider has its updated 

performance plan accepted first. Where 

two providers cover the same hex-9 and 

one provider claims that the area is 

inaccessible for testing, but the other 

provider does not, the area would 

become a part of the latter provider’s 

single-support area, and the former 

provider would have to cover the same 

number of hex-9s elsewhere. 

(6) If a mobile provider discovers that 

some areas are inaccessible during 

required speed testing or during an 

audit, the mobile provider will be in 

noncompliance for those hex-9s, and 

potentially additional hex-9s if the 

inaccessible hex-9s were selected 

through random sampling. If this 

noncompliance is discovered for the 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2
107232 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 250 / Tuesday, December 31, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

interim milestone testing, the mobile 

provider may identify, in an updated 

performance plan, comparable hex-9s 

that it will serve. 

(i) Phase down. Phase down schedule 

for mobile competitive eligible 

telecommunications carrier Alaska 

Connect Fund extended support. 

(1) Mobile providers subject to phase 

down or proportional phase down shall 

have phase down occur on the following 

schedule: 

(i) For the first twelve months after 

the phase down start date, each such 

competitive eligible 

telecommunications carrier shall receive 

two-thirds of the monthly support 

amount the carrier received pursuant to 

the Alaska Plan. 

(ii) For the thirteenth through twentyfourth months after the phase down 

start date, each such competitive 

eligible telecommunications carrier 

shall receive one-third of the monthly 

support amount the carrier received 

pursuant to the Alaska Plan. 

(iii) By the twenty-fifth month, no 

such competitive eligible 

telecommunications carrier shall receive 

universal service support pursuant to 

this section. 

(2) Competitive eligible 

telecommunications carriers providing 

mobile service that receive support 

under the Alaska Plan pursuant to 

§ 54.317(e), and that are eligible to 

receive extended support under this 

section but do not opt in to receive 

extended support pursuant to paragraph 

(b) of this section, shall have their highcost support end with Alaska Plan on 

December 31, 2026. 

(3) Competitive eligible 

telecommunications carriers previously 

receiving mobile support pursuant to 

§ 54.317(e) for an area newly ineligible 

under the Alaska Connect Fund that do 

not have an updated performance plan 

approved by the Wireless 

Telecommunications Bureau with 

comparable areas for the Alaska Connect 

Fund will have their proportional 

support phased down, beginning 90 

days after being notified by the Wireless 

Telecommunications Bureau that they 

are receiving support in an ineligible 

area or by January 1, 2027, whichever is 

later. Competitive eligible 

telecommunications carriers that have 

new performance plans with 

comparable areas approved by the 

Wireless Telecommunications Bureau 

may receive restoration of the support 

that was phased down for the areas that 

the comparable areas replaced. 

(4) If a mobile provider’s updated 

performance plan is not approved 

within 90 days of the mobile provider 

being notified that it is covering 

ineligible hex-9s because those hex-9s 

cannot be tested, then the mobile 

provider will have a proportional 

amount of support phased down. If the 

mobile provider’s updated performance 

plan for covering comparable hex-9s is 

approved after 90 days, it may have any 

support that was phased down restored. 

(5) Competitive eligible 

telecommunication carriers providing 

mobile service that receive support 

under the Alaska Plan pursuant to 

§ 54.317(e) but are found by the 

Wireless Telecommunications Bureau to 

be ineligible for extended support under 

the Alaska Connect Fund, shall not have 

their high cost support for mobile 

services phased down. Their support 

under the Alaska Plan will be 

terminated as of December 31, 2026. If 

the Wireless Telecommunications 

Bureau determines that an Alaska Plan 

mobile provider did not meet its Alaska 

Plan buildout obligations after the 

commencement of the Alaska Connect 

Fund, and also determines that the 

mobile provider is not eligible to receive 

Alaska Connect Fund mobile support, 

the Wireless Telecommunications 

Bureau can take all actions necessary to 

recover Alaska Connect Fund support, 

including those set forth in § 54.320(c) 

and (d). This does not impact any 

separate actions related to § 54.320(c) 

and (d) with respect to the Alaska Plan 

final milestone. 

(j) Annual submission of BDC 

infrastructure data. (1) A mobile 

provider must submit, on an annual 

basis, all of the infrastructure data that 

it would submit as part of the 

Broadband Data Collection mobile 

verification process, as provided in 47 

CFR 1.7006(c), for all infrastructure 

used to serve its supported area for 

coverage as of December 31 of each year, 

due by March 1 of the following year. 

(2) Mobile providers must submit 

these infrastructure data to the Wireless 

Telecommunication Bureau, subject to 

any additional or amended instructions. 

(k) Submission of speed test data. (1) 

A mobile provider receiving more than 

$5 million annually in Alaska Connect 

Fund support must submit speed test 

data along with its certification that it 

has met its milestone Alaska Connect 

Fund commitments. 

(2) The speed test data must conform 

to the Broadband Data Collection 

Specifications for Mobile Speed Test 

Data, except that ‘‘accessible’’ hexes that 

are included in sampling for purposes of 

the Alaska Connect Fund must include 

any hexagon that is testable by at least 

an uncrewed Aircraft System. 

(3) If a hex-9 is determined to be 

untestable and, thus, ineligible and this 

is discovered during speed testing of a 

provider’s commitments, the hex-9— 

and any surrounding hex-9s also 

deemed to be untestable—will be 

counted as noncompliant with the 

provider’s commitments. The provider’s 

support may be reduced accordingly, 

consistent with the compliance tiers set 

forth in § 54.320(d). 

(4) Some hexes may only be 

accessible by uncrewed aircraft systems 

(UAS). The Wireless 

Telecommunications Bureau in 

coordination with the Office of 

Economics and Analytics may consider 

under what circumstances alternatives 

to on-the-ground speed testing data are 

appropriate to validate coverage in such 

areas, including use of UAS and to make 

any other accommodations to the testing 

necessary to determine whether the 

providers have met their commitment or 

not. To the extent that a mobile provider 

is permitted to use UAs to conduct 

testing, it may do so if the allocation 

and service rules permit airborne use of 

the spectrum that will be used to 

provide the mobile service to be tested 

as part of the drive tests. Otherwise, the 

provider must additionally obtain a 

waiver from the Commission (pursuant 

to 47 CFR 1.925) of any airborne 

limitations. Where UAS are used for 

speed testing in the Alaska Connect 

Fund: 

(i) UAS should mirror on-the-ground 

testing (outdoor stationary environment) 

and fly at the lowest, safest possible 

elevation, to best reflect on-the-ground 

usage. 

(ii) UAS performing speed tests must: 

(A) At all times operate at less than 

200 feet above ground in remote areas 

of Alaska where road-based testing is 

impractical/impossible; 

(B) Limit power to the minimum 

necessary to accomplish testing; and 

(C) Upon receipt of a complaint of 

interference from a co-channel licensee, 

notify the Commission and either 

remedy the interference or cease 

operations. 

(iii) There may be circumstances 

where other methods are equally safe to 

using UAS but may better reflect the onthe-ground user experience, in which 

case, the Wireless Telecommunications 

Bureau, in coordination with the Office 

of Economics and Analytics, may 

restrict the use of UAs in some hex-9s 

for speed testing purposes, even when 

UAS usage is otherwise permissible. 

(l) Point of contact information. A 

mobile provider must provide the 

Wireless Telecommunications Bureau a 

point of contact for discussions 

regarding its performance plan and data 

submissions. Alaska Connect Fund 

recipients must notify the Wireless 

Telecommunications Bureau within 30 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 250 / Tuesday, December 31, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 107233 

days whenever the point of contact 

changes at a company. All such 

notifications must be submitted to 

ACF@fcc.gov. 

(m) Reporting, recordkeeping and 

compliance obligations. (1) Mobile 

providers receiving Alaska Connect 

Fund support shall be subject to the 

reporting, certification, and other 

obligations set forth in §§ 54.9, 54.10, 

54.11, 54.313, and 54.314. 

(2) Mobile providers receiving Alaska 

Connect Fund support shall be subject 

to the compliance measures, 

recordkeeping requirements, and audit 

requirements set forth in § 54.320. If 

specific performance obligations are not 

achieved in the time period identified in 

the approved performance plans or 

other obligations or terms and 

conditions for the receipt of funding 

under the Alaska Connect Fund are not 

met the mobile provider shall be subject 

to the penalties set forth in § 54.320(c) 

and (d). Audits may include speed tests 

tailored to the circumstances of the 

information that is to be verified; 

providers under other speed test 

obligations may also be subject to any 

and all audits, including speed test 

audits. 

■ 9. Amend § 54.320 by adding 

paragraph (e) to read as follows: 

§ 54.320 Compliance and recordkeeping 

for the high-cost program. 

* * * * * 

(e) Each hex-9 in the Alaska Connect 

Fund mobile provider’s performance 

plan shall be considered a ‘‘location’’ for 

purposes of paragraph (d) of this 

section. 

■ 10. Add subpart U, consisting of 

§§ 54.2100 through 54.2102, to read as 

follows: 

Subpart U—Alaska Connect Fund for Fixed 

Services 

Sec. 

54.2100 Alaska Connect Fund Transition— 

ACF Transition. 

54.2101 Alaska Connect Fund Fixed—Fixed 

ACF. 

Phase down support for Alaska Connect 

Fund Transition. 

Subpart U—Alaska Connect Fund for 

Fixed Services 

§ 54.2100 Alaska Connect Fund 

Transition—ACF Transition. 

Alaska Connect Fund Transition (ACF 

Transition), as discussed in FCC 24– 

116, refers to high-cost support for fixed 

services provided from January 1, 2025, 

through December 31, 2028, to carriers 

serving Alaska and authorized pursuant 

to §§ 54.306(e), 54.310(i), and 54.311(g). 

§ 54.2101 Alaska Connect Fund Fixed— 

Fixed ACF. 

(a) Intended use of support. Carriers 

receiving Alaska Connect Fund Fixed 

(Fixed ACF) support, as discussed in 

FCC 24–116, shall use the support to 

operate and maintain a network 

providing voice and broadband internet 

access service to all locations for which 

it is authorized to receive support 

consistent with the public interest 

obligations under paragraph (j) of this 

section; 

(b) Term of support. Fixed ACF 

support shall be provided from January 

1, 2029, through December 31, 2034. 

(c) Eligible carriers. Fixed ACF 

support shall be available only to 

eligible telecommunications carriers in 

Alaska that have received or been 

awarded Federal or state government 

infrastructure support to deploy 

networks capable of providing voice 

service and broadband internet access 

service meeting the public interest 

obligations as described in paragraph (i) 

of this section but such eligible 

telecommunications carrier are not 

entitled to receive such support. The 

Wireline Competition Bureau shall 

determine carriers eligible to receive 

Fixed ACF support but may not 

authorize any carrier for Fixed ACF 

support that is not an eligible 

telecommunications carrier. The 

Wireline Competition Bureau shall use 

the Broadband Funding Map to assist in 

determining eligible carriers. The 

Wireline Competition Bureau shall 

determine, after opportunity for public 

notice and comment, whether 

additional financial or other 

requirements for participants in Fixed 

ACF are in the public interest. 

(d) Eligible location. The Wireline 

Competition Bureau shall determine 

locations eligible for ACF Fixed 

support. In determining eligible 

locations, the Wireline Competition 

Bureau shall: 

(i) Consider allocating Fixed ACF 

support based on the categories of 

locations as provided by the Alaska 

State Broadband Office for the purposes 

of the Broadband Equity, Access, and 

Deployment (BEAD) Program, 

authorized by the Infrastructure 

Investment and Jobs Act of 2021, 

Division F, Title I, section 60102, Public 

Law 117–58, 135 Stat. 429 (November 

15, 2021); and 

(ii) Not authorize Fixed ACF support 

for more than one carrier for any eligible 

location. 

(e) Support amounts. The Wireline 

Competition Bureau shall determine an 

amount of annual support available for 

each eligible location. 

(f) Budget. The total annual amount of 

support authorized may not exceed 

$107,600,000, the annual budget 

adopted by the Commission in FCC 24– 

116, or a budget adopted by the 

Wireline Competition Bureau pursuant 

to delegated authority. Any budget 

adopted pursuant to delegated authority 

may not exceed 15% above 

$107,600,000 per year. 

(g) Election of support. The Wireline 

Competition Bureau shall adopt rules 

and provide guidance for the offer and 

election of Fixed ACF support no later 

than twelve months prior to the start of 

the Fixed ACF support term. 

(h) Disbursement of Fixed ACF 

support. The Wireline Competition 

Bureau shall announce in a public 

notice when an eligible 

telecommunications carrier is 

authorized to receive Fixed ACF 

support. The public notice shall detail 

how disbursements will be made. 

(i) Public interest obligations. The 

Wireline Competition Bureau shall 

adopt public interest obligations 

requiring the provision of voice service 

and broadband internet access service, 

requiring broadband speed of 100 Mbps 

download and 20 Mbps upload, with a 

round-trip latency of 100 ms or less, and 

usage capacity and rates that are 

reasonably comparable to comparable 

offerings in urban areas. The Wireline 

Competition Bureau may adopt public 

service obligations requiring broadband 

speeds below 100 Mbps download and 

20 Mbps upload and/or round-trip 

latency greater than 100 ms to 

accommodate circumstances of specific 

locations. For purposes of determining 

reasonable comparable usage capacity, 

recipients are presumed to meet this 

requirement if they meet or exceed the 

usage level announced by public notice 

issued by the Wireline Competition 

Bureau and/or Office of Economics and 

Analytics. For purposes of determining 

reasonable comparability of rates, 

recipients are presumed to meet this 

requirement if they offer rates at or 

below the applicable benchmark to be 

announced annually by public notice 

issued by the Wireline Competition 

Bureau and/or the Office of Economics 

and Analytics, or no more than the nonpromotional prices charged for a 

comparable fixed wireline service in 

urban areas in Alaska. 

(j) Reporting obligations, compliance, 

and recordkeeping. (1) Recipients of 

Fixed ACF support shall be subject to 

the reporting obligations set forth in 

§§ 54.9, 54.10, 54.11, 54.313, and 

54.314. 

(2) Recipients of Fixed ACF support 

shall be subject to the reporting 

obligations set forth in § 54.316, to the 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2
107234 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 250 / Tuesday, December 31, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

extent the recipient has defined 

broadband deployment obligations. 

(3) Recipients of Fixed ACF support 

shall comply with methodologies and 

non-compliance measures adopted 

pursuant to § 54.313(a)(6), as of the date 

the Alaska Connect Fund Order, FCC 

24–116 was adopted, unless and until 

the Wireline Competition Bureau adopts 

network performance testing 

methodologies and non-compliance 

measures that account for unique 

aspects of Alaska. 

(4) Recipients of Fixed ACF support 

shall be subject to the compliance 

measures, recordkeeping requirements, 

and audit requirements set forth in 

§ 54.320(a) through (c). 

(5) Recipients of Fixed ACF support 

shall be subject to the non-compliance 

measures set forth in § 54.320(d). 

(k) Cybersecurity and supply chain 

risk management requirements. (1) A 

Fixed ACF carrier shall implement 

operational cybersecurity and supply 

chain risk management plans meeting 

the requirements of this section by 

January 1, 2029. 

(2) A Fixed ACF carrier shall certify 

that it has implemented plans required 

under paragraph (k)(1) of this section 

and submit the plans to the 

Administrator by January 2, 2029, or 

within 30 days of approval under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act, whichever is 

later. 

(3) Fixed ACF carriers that fail to 

comply with the requirements set forth 

in paragraphs (k)(1) and (2) are subject 

to the following non-compliance 

measures: 

(i) The Wireline Competition Bureau 

shall direct the Administrator to 

withhold 25 percent of the Fixed ACF 

carrier’s monthly support for failure to 

comply with paragraph (k)(2) of this 

section until the carrier makes the 

required certification and submits the 

required plans. 

(ii) At any time during the support 

term, if a Fixed ACF carrier does not 

have in place operational cybersecurity 

and supply chain risk management 

plans meeting the requirements of this 

section, the Wireline Competition 

Bureau shall direct the Administrator to 

withhold 25 percent of the carrier’s 

monthly support. 

(iii) Once the carrier comes into 

compliance, the Administrator shall 

stop withholding support, and the 

carrier will receive all of the support 

that had been withheld pursuant to this 

section. 

(4) A Fixed ACF carrier’s 

cybersecurity risk management plans 

shall reflect at least the National 

Institute of Standards and Technology’s 

Framework for Improving Critical 

Infrastructure Cybersecurity v.1.1 (2018) 

(NIST Framework), or any successor 

version of the NIST Framework, and 

must reflect established cybersecurity 

best practices that address each of the 

Core Functions described in the NIST 

Framework, such as the standards and 

controls set forth in the Cybersecurity & 

Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) 

Cybersecurity Cross-sector Performance 

Goals and Objectives (CISA CPGs) or the 

Center for internet Security Critical 

Security Controls (CIS Controls). 

(5) A Fixed ACF carrier’s supply 

chain risk management plans shall 

reflect the key practices discussed in 

NISTIR 8276, Key Practices in Cyber 

Supply Chain Risk Management: 

Observations from Industry, and related 

supply chain risk management guidance 

from NIST 800–161. 

(6) If a Fixed ACF carrier makes a 

substantive modification to its plans 

under this section, the carrier shall file 

an updated plan with the Administrator 

within 30 days of making the 

modification. A modification to a plan 

under this section is substantive if at 

least one of the following conditions 

apply: 

(i) There is a change in the plan’s 

scope, including any addition, removal, 

or significant alternation to the types of 

risks covered by the plan (e.g., 

expanding a plan to cover new areas 

such as supply chain risks to Internet of 

Things devices or cloud security could 

be a substantive change); 

(ii) There is a change in the plan’s risk 

mitigation strategies (e.g., implementing 

a new encryption protocol or deploying 

a different firewall architecture); 

(iii) There is a shift in organizational 

structure (e.g., creating a new 

information technology department or 

hiring a Chief Information Security 

Officer); 

(iv) There is a shift in the threat 

landscape prompting the organization to 

recognize the emergence of new threats 

or vulnerabilities that weren’t 

previously accounted for in the plan; 

(v) Any updates are made to comply 

with new cybersecurity regulations, 

standards, or laws; 

(vi) Significant changes are made in 

the supply chain, including offboarding 

major suppliers or vendors, or shifts in 

procurement strategies that may impact 

the security of the supply chain; or 

(vii) Any large-scale technological 

change is made, including the adoption 

of new systems or technologies, 

migrating to a new information 

technology infrastructure, or 

significantly changing the information 

technology architecture. 

§ 54.2102 Phase down support for Alaska 

Connect Fund Transition. 

(a) Support amounts. Beginning in 

January 2029, a carrier that receives 

support during ACF Transition and is 

not eligible for Fixed ACF support or 

will receive less Fixed ACF support 

than during ACF Transition, will 

receive the following high-cost support 

in addition to its Fixed ACF support, as 

applicable: 

(1) The first 12 months (2029), the 

carrier will receive 60% of the 

difference between ACF Transition and 

Fixed ACF support; 

(2) The second 12 months (2030), the 

carrier will receive 30% of the 

difference between ACF Transition and 

Fixed ACF support; 

(3) The third 12 months (2031), the 

carrier will receive 15% of the 

difference between ACF Transition and 

Fixed ACF support; 

(4) Thereafter, the carrier will receive 

whatever, if any, Fixed ACF support for 

the remainder of the support term. 

(b) Reporting obligations, compliance, 

and recordkeeping. The Wireline 

Competition Bureau shall determine 

necessary reporting, compliance, and 

recordkeeping requirements in 

connection with phase down support. 

[FR Doc. 2024–29485 Filed 12–30–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES2