Most Commenters Support CAF Phase II Challenge Proposal, with Tweaks
Commenters generally supported a process proposed by the FCC Wireline Bureau to let parties challenge census blocks misidentified by the National Broadband Map (NBM). The process would let parties challenge census blocks identified as eligible to receive Connect America Fund Phase II support, when the parties argue they're actually unserved by an unsubsidized competitor. Cable and wireless ISPs offered some tweaks to the process. USTelecom and several rural associations offered alternative proposals that would involve recommendations by state authorities.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
The Wireless Internet Service Providers Association said it “generally supports” the bureau’s proposals, but made recommendations to “better ensure the fairness and transparency” of any adopted process (http://bit.ly/155HAPR). The challenge process should take place after the proposed recipients identify the locations where they'll accept Phase II subsidies, WISPA said. “This would minimize the burden on all parties -- including the Bureau -- by limiting challenges to the specific locations that matter.” The bureau should use whatever the most current version of the NBM is when the challenge takes place, and should only deem a census block “served” if faced with “clear and convincing” evidence, the association said. It said that high standard of proof would ensure that accurate information isn’t erroneously corrected.
Until the commission can provide “more precise latency and capacity metrics,” it shouldn’t use them as a basis for challenging the NBM, the American Cable Association said (http://bit.ly/12NX1xS). The period for responding to a challenge shouldn’t start until the commission reviews the challenger’s evidence “to ensure it is sufficiently probative,” ACA said. It suggested at least 40 days to respond to the submitted evidence. The NBM should be the “presumptive source of accurate information,” and the initial burden should be on the challengers to submit enough proof so the process can move forward, ACA said. The commission should “vet” the challengers’ evidence of map inaccuracy to discourage challenges based on limited evidence, ACA said.
NCTA said it supports the bureau’s proposal, but doesn’t think the bureau should require providers which are updating information on served census blocks to serve a copy of this information on the price-cap carrier (http://bit.ly/12O9v8G). “Price cap LECs are very familiar with the Commission’s Electronic Comment Filing System,” NCTA said, “so they will have adequate notice of providers’ filing made through that system.” Phase II commitments should be publicly available to let consumers track where their USF contributions are being spent, and to let unserved customers know when they can expect to receive broadband service, NCTA said.
USTelecom offered “a meaningful challenge process” for the commission to use to establish a list of areas eligible for Phase II support (http://bit.ly/12O5QrA). The process would include inviting state mapping authorities to work with broadband providers to determine what services they offer. After the bureau posts a list of verified high-cost unserved census blocks, challengers should have 30 days to provide evidence of areas they actually do serve, USTelecom said. State mapping authorities could provide recommendations in case of disputes. Before implementing the Phase II challenge process, the commission “must establish technical standards for broadband service,” USTelecom said. “It is impossible to determine whether voice and broadband are being provided by one or more unsubsidized providers without such a definition.”
NTCA, the National Exchange Carrier Association and Western Telecommunications Alliance filed jointly to “highlight concerns with the cavalier and imprecise means by which purported ‘unsubsidized competitors’ might be identified” (http://bit.ly/12O2LaO). They criticized an NBM they said was “riddled with errors and provides insufficient information” to justify use as “a presumptive determinant of where” USF or CAF support should go. Any challenge process should put the burden on the “would-be ‘unsubsidized competitor'” to make several showings “through clear and convincing evidence” in a petition to a state commission, the three associations said. Such showings would include proof that it will satisfy public interest obligations, deliver speeds of at least 4 Mbps downstream and 1 Mbps uploads, and comply with the same accountability requirements as the USF for the area in question, the groups said. “It is essential as a matter of ‘data-driven’ public policy -- and the statutory mandate of universal service requires -- that a more robust and carefully designed process based upon objective and complete data be employed in assessing the purported presence of ‘unsubsidized competition.'”