```

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 250 (Tuesday, December 31, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 107196-107234]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-29485]

[[Page 107195]]

Vol. 89

Tuesday,

No. 250

December 31, 2024

Part II

Federal Communications Commission

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

47 CFR Part 54

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; Final Rule

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

[[Page 107196]]

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

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 
[email protected] or 202-418-7400; Matthew Warner, Attorney 
Advisor, Competition and Infrastructure Policy Division, Wireless 
Telecommunications Bureau at [email protected] or 202-418-2419; or 
[email protected].

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-adopts-alaska-connect-fund-further-address-broadband-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

[[Page 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 NTCA-The 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

[[Page 107198]]

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 high-cost 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 
ten-year 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

[[Page 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 inflation-based, 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

[[Page 107200]]

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

[[Page 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 high-cost 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 high-cost 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

[[Page 107202]]

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 last-mile 
infrastructure. For example, a recipient that operates its own middle-
mile 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 non-community 
based. The Commission expects that Fixed ACF support will be most 
efficiently spent in non-community 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 community-based 
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.

[[Page 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 non-contiguous 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 modern-day 
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 
satellite-based 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

[[Page 107204]]

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 Alaska-specific 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 Alaska-specific 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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec. Sec.  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 non-compliance 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 Sec.  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 middle-mile 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 Sec.  54.320(a)-(c). In addition, 
recipients of Fixed ACF shall be subject to the non-compliance measures 
set forth in Sec.  54.320(d). The Commission directs WCB to issue 
guidance on how Sec.  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,

[[Page 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 three-year 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 phase-down 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 high-cost 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Example 1: Carrier A         Example 2: Carrier B         Example 3: Carrier C
                            receives $1 million in ACF   receives $1 million in ACF   receives $1 million in ACF
       Support year         transition support and is    transition support and is    transition support and is
                             eligible for $700,000 in     eligible for $200,000 in     ineligible for Fixed ACF
                                fixed ACF support            fixed ACF support                 support
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2029.....................  $880,000...................  $680,000...................  $600,000.
                           [$700,000 + (60% x           [$200,000 + (60% x           (60% x $1,000,000).
                            300,000)].                   $800,000)].
2030.....................  $790,000...................  $440,000...................  300,000.
                           [700,000 + (30% x 300,000)]  [$200,000 + (30% x           (30% x $1,000,000).
                                                         $800,000)].
2031.....................  $745,000...................  $320,000...................  150,000.
                           [700,000 + (15% x 300,000)]  [$200,000 + (15% x           (15% x $1,000,000).
                                                         $800,000)].
2032-2034................  $700,000 annually in Fixed   $200,000 annually in Fixed   $0 annually in Fixed ACF
                            ACF support.                 ACF support.                 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

[[Page 107206]]

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 single-support 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

[[Page 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 high-cost support funds, so that it can re-
evaluate 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 high-cost 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 long-term planning.
    Extension for Duplicate-Support Areas. Where two or more mobile-
provider 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 single-support 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

[[Page 107208]]

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 
duplicate-support 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 duplicate-support 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 duplicate-support 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 
mobile-provider 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 duplicate-support 
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 last-mile networks in 
unserved and underserved areas for the purposes of the Alaska Connect 
Fund, as other prominent federal broadband programs

[[Page 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 single-
support 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 (hex-9s) 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 census-block level is often too small an area for a meaningful 
aggregated analysis of hex-9s, 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 hex-11s 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

[[Page 107210]]

support under the Alaska Connect Fund.
    The Commission limits eligibility for Alaska Connect Fund extended-
support--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 duplicate-support 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 
Sec. Sec.  54.320(c) and (d). In addition, this does not impact any 
separate actions related to Sec. Sec.  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

[[Page 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 high-cost 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

[[Page 107212]]

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 on-the-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 hex-9s 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 Eligible-Areas 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

[[Page 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 hex-9s.''
    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 hex-9, 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, single-support 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 
hex-9s 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

[[Page 107214]]

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 hex-
9s, 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, mobile-provider 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 
public-interest 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 
single-support 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 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. 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 duplicate-support 
areas because of the potential for support changes in duplicate-support 
areas, and because in duplicate-support 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,

[[Page 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 
longer-term 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 last-mile 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 duplicate-support 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

[[Page 107216]]

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 Population-
Distribution 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 single-support 
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 duplicate-support 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

[[Page 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 hex-9s 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 hex-9 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 population-based 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 area-based 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

[[Page 107218]]

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 census-tract-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 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.
    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 single-support 
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 stand-alone 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

[[Page 107219]]

for a certain portion of the population in their service area. These 
providers were required to certify whether any terrestrial backhaul, or 
any new-generation 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 middle-mile 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 
long-standing 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 high-cost support. Alaska 
Connect Fund mobile support recipients shall be subject to the 
compliance measures, recordkeeping requirements, and audit requirements 
set forth in Sec.  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 
Sec. Sec.  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

[[Page 107220]]

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 Sec.  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 duplicate-support 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 high-cost 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-the-ground 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 on-the-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-the-ground test data in response to a verification 
request, ``it must provide such data based on a sample of on-the-ground 
tests that is statistically appropriate for the area tested,'' and

[[Page 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-the-ground 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-the-ground 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 
Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 
Sec. Sec.  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

[[Page 107222]]

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 
last-mile 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 mobile-providers' 
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 [email protected].
    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

[[Page 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

[[Page 107224]]

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

[[Page 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 already-built 
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 mobile-provider 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 
Sec. Sec.  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 Sec. Sec.  
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 
Sec. Sec.  54.313, 54.314, and 54.316 of the Commission's rules, and 
are subject to requirements in Sec. Sec.  54.9, 54.10, and 54.11 of the 
Commission's rules.
    WCB may adopt network performance testing methodologies and non-
compliance measures that account for unique aspects of service in 
Alaska. Until WCB adopts such methodologies, recipients of Fixed ACF 
shall comply with methodologies and non-compliance 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 Sec.  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 
Sec.  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

[[Page 107226]]

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 Sec. Sec.  54.308, 54.313, 54.314, 
54.320(d), and 54.321 of the Commission's rules, as amended, Sec.  
54.318, and be subject to the requirements in Sec. Sec.  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 two-area 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

[[Page 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

0
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.

0
2. Amend Sec.  54.306 by revising paragraph (c) introductory text and 
adding paragraph (e) to read as follows:

Sec.  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 Sec.  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.

0
3. Amend Sec.  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:

Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  
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 
Sec.  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 duplicate-
support 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

[[Page 107228]]

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.

0
4. Amend Sec.  54.310 by adding paragraph (i) to read as follows:

Sec.  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.

0
5. Amend Sec.  54.311 by adding paragraph (g) to read as follows:

Sec.  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.

0
6. Amend Sec.  54.313 by revising paragraph (f)(3) and adding paragraph 
(r) to read as follows:

Sec.  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 Sec.  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

[[Page 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 (hex-9s) 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.

0
7. Amend Sec.  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:

Sec.  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 Sec.  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-of-return 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:
* * * * *

0
8. Add Sec.  54.318 to read as follows:

Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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

[[Page 107230]]

1.7001(a)(20). Competitive eligible telecommunications carriers seeking 
mobile support under the Alaska Connect Fund must use the Eligible-
areas 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 [email protected] 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 duplicate-support areas 
after the Alaska Plan ends.
    (1) Areas. (i) Support areas are areas covered by one Alaska Plan 
mobile-provider 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) Single-support 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;

[[Page 107231]]

    (iii) The resolution 9 hexagons (hex-9s) 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 (hex-9s) 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 hex-9 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 hex-9s 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 hex-9s. 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 
hex-9s.
    (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

[[Page 107232]]

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 twenty-fourth 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 
Sec.  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 high-cost 
support end with Alaska Plan on December 31, 2026.
    (3) Competitive eligible telecommunications carriers previously 
receiving mobile support pursuant to Sec.  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 
Sec.  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 Sec.  54.320(c) and (d). This does not 
impact any separate actions related to Sec.  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 Sec.  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 on-the-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

[[Page 107233]]

days whenever the point of contact changes at a company. All such 
notifications must be submitted to [email protected].
    (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 Sec. Sec.  
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 Sec.  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 
Sec.  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.

0
9. Amend Sec.  54.320 by adding paragraph (e) to read as follows:

Sec.  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.

0
10. Add subpart U, consisting of Sec. Sec.  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

Sec.  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 Sec. Sec.  54.306(e), 54.310(i), and 
54.311(g).

Sec.  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 non-promotional 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 Sec. Sec.  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 Sec.  54.316, to the

[[Page 107234]]

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 Sec.  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 Sec.  54.320(a) through (c).
    (5) Recipients of Fixed ACF support shall be subject to the non-
compliance measures set forth in Sec.  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.

Sec.  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
```