83 FR 12755 - Connect America Fund-Alaska Plan

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 57 (March 23, 2018)

In this document, the Wireline Competition Bureau and Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, grant in part and deny in part the Alaska Telephone Association's Petition for Reconsideration of the Bureaus' Map Instructions PN and provide clarification regarding Alaska Plan carriers' map data filing obligations (map collection).

[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 57 (Friday, March 23, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12755-12758]
From the Federal Register Online  [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2018-05881]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[WC Docket No. 16-271; DA 18-197]


Connect America Fund--Alaska Plan

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Wireline Competition Bureau and Wireless 
Telecommunications Bureau, grant in part and deny in part the Alaska 
Telephone Association's Petition for Reconsideration of the Bureaus' 
Map Instructions PN and provide clarification regarding Alaska Plan 
carriers' map data filing obligations (map collection).

DATES: Applicable date announcement: July 1, 2018 filing date.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW, 
Washington, DC 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jesse Jachman, Wireline Competition 
Bureau, (202) 418-7400 or TTY: (202) 418-0484.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Order 
on Reconsideration in WC Docket No. 16-271; DA 18-197, adopted on 
February 28, 2018 and released on February 28, 2018. The full text of 
this document is available for public inspection during regular 
business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Room CY-A257, 445 12th 
Street SW, Washington, DC 20554, or at the following internet address: 
https://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2018/db0228/DA-18-197A1.pdf.

I. Introduction

    1. In this Order, the Wireline Competition Bureau (WCB) and 
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (WTB) (collectively the Bureaus), 
grant in part and deny in part the Alaska Telephone Association's (ATA) 
Petition for Reconsideration of the Bureaus' Map Instructions PN and 
provide clarification regarding Alaska Plan carriers' map data filing 
obligations (map collection). The Bureaus grant the Petition in part 
with respect to the required data accuracy standard for the

[[Page 12756]]

map collection due to be filed in 2018 and extend the March 1, 2018 
submission deadline until July 1, 2018. The Bureaus also provide 
clarification regarding the data to be filed regarding ``community 
anchor institutions'' (CAI or anchor institutions). The Petition is 
denied in all other respects.

II. Discussion

    2. The Bureaus deny ATA's Petition with respect to its request for 
the Bureaus to largely forgo the collection of cell-site backhaul and 
CAI data. Therefore, carriers must submit cell sites and CAIs with 
their associated links and update that data on a yearly basis as 
described in the following.
    3. As an initial matter, the Bureaus conclude that ATA's narrow 
interpretation of the scope of the initial map collection is contrary 
to the most reasonable reading of the relevant Commission rule, section 
54.316(a)(6). ATA does not address the meaning of this rule in its 
Petition. The first sentence of that rule does not specifically 
restrict the map collection to ``middle-mile'' or ``backhaul'' 
facilities and states that carriers ``shall submit fiber network maps 
or microwave network maps covering eligible areas.'' The language in 
the rule's second sentence, by its terms, states that carriers should 
provide map updates for ``middle-mile'' facilities. The rule language 
should be read in the context of the Alaska Plan Order, 81 FR 69696, 
October 7, 2016 and its discussion of the facilities that may affect 
carriers' ability to provide 10/1 Mbps service to end-users. Because 
the Alaska Plan Order uses multiple terms to describe such facilities, 
and, as explained in the following, the presence and quality of cell-
site backhaul and connections to many CAIs do in fact affect carriers' 
ability to meet their current and future commitments over last-mile 
facilities, the Commission intended the rule requiring the submission 
of ``fiber network maps or microwave network maps'' and ``middle mile'' 
data to be read broadly to include cell-site backhaul and CAIs.
    4. The Bureaus note that the WTB also has the authority to collect 
this same data upon request regardless of whether those facilities fall 
within the scope of the map collection in section 54.316(a)(6). 
Specifically, the WTB may request ``additional data'' regarding 
facilities relevant to ``determining whether or not [participating 
mobile carriers] meet their five- and 10-year commitments.'' Carriers' 
performance commitments are broken down and differentiated by the type 
of facilities (satellite, fiber, fixed wireless) supporting the 
committed speed and technology (e.g., LTE) of the last-mile connections 
serving particular end-user populations. Information regarding the 
location of cell-site backhaul, CAIs and associated links may be 
collected by the WTB upon request because they are necessary to 
determining whether carriers' differentiated commitments are or could 
be met.
    5. Cell-Site Backhaul. Notwithstanding the obligation of carriers 
to submit cell-site backhaul data pursuant to the plain meaning of 
section 54.316(a)(6), ATA's position that the map collection is 
restricted to ``middle-mile'' facilities as defined in the CAM rests on 
an incorrect reading of the Alaska Plan Order. The Alaska Plan Order 
does not, as ATA argues, define ``middle-mile'' and/or ``backhaul'' to 
mean solely the connection between central offices. Rather, these terms 
are used to describe the entire connection between the last mile and 
internet gateway. A cell-site backhaul facility is a subset of this 
connection.
    6. The Commission adopted a more expansive meaning of these terms 
in the Alaska Plan Order to enable it to identify the ``weak-links'' in 
carriers' networks that affect carriers' current and future 
commitments. As noted in the OBI Technical Paper #1 that ATA cites, 
cell-site backhaul and connections between central offices ``can 
quickly become the choke point'' and ``adequate [cell-site] backhaul is 
one of the key drivers for providing wireless broadband.'' The Bureaus 
agree with ATA that high-capacity connections between central offices 
are relevant to an assessment of whether carriers can meet their 
commitments to end-users within the exchanges served by those central 
offices. Such high capacity connections are not, however, sufficient 
for such an assessment.
    7. ATA also does not explain why cell-site backhaul should be 
considered ``last mile'' and therefore excluded from the collection. 
Indeed, as ATA acknowledges, the ordinary meaning of ``backhaul,'' in 
the wireless context refers to the ``connections that link a mobile 
wireless service provider's cell sites to the mobile switching centers 
. . . .'' On the other hand, a ``last mile'' facility is the connection 
from the end-user's handset or terminal to the ``first point of 
aggregation,'' such as a ``wireless tower location.'' The Map 
Instructions do not require the submission of the ``last-mile'' 
wireless end-users' location data.
    8. The Alaska Plan Order requirement for carriers to submit data 
regarding facilities that lie between the ``last mile'' and the 
``internet gateway'' is also consistent with the logical structure of 
the Alaska Plan Order itself. The Alaska Plan Order describes carriers' 
networks as a three-part model. Specifically, the Alaska Plan Order 
separately describes the (1) ``last mile''--reflected in the bandwidth 
and price commitments provided to consumers via wired and wireless 
facilities and, for wireless commitments, the last-mile wireless 
technology to be deployed, such as LTE--(2) ``middle mile'' and/or 
``backhaul'' facilities which connect last mile facilities to the 
internet gateway and affect the ability of the carrier to meet its 
last-mile commitments; and (3) the internet gateway and the internet 
beyond. Under this three-part model, network components other than (1) 
or (3) and which can affect the ability of the carrier to meet its last 
mile commitments are (2): ``middle mile'' and/or ``backhaul.'' As 
explained, because cell-site backhaul is not considered ``last mile'' 
for purposes of this map filing requirement and is clearly not the 
``internet gateway,'' it must be ``middle mile'' and/or ``backhaul.''
    9. This broad meaning of ``middle mile'' and ``backhaul'' is also 
consistent with the common understanding of these terms in the wireless 
industry and has been adopted by the Petitioner in other contexts. For 
example, ATA member GCI, in providing a cost model for wireless 
facilities in Alaska, used the term ``backhaul'' to describe both (1) 
``cell-site backhaul'' and (2) the connection to central ``hubs'' in 
three Alaskan cities. In that instance, GCI stated that the quality of 
the last-mile connection is dependent on the robustness of both (1) and 
(2) and argued that the cost of upgrading both segments is a barrier to 
providing higher speed last-mile services to Alaskan end-users.
    10. The Bureaus grant the Petition in part to the extent it seeks 
relief from the March 1, 2018 deadline, and the 7.6-meter accuracy 
requirement. By providing this relief, the Bureaus allow carriers 
limited flexibility and time to submit data in a way that takes into 
consideration the particular challenges carriers in Alaska face (e.g., 
difficult seasonal weather) while also ensuring the Commission is 
provided with the data it required for implementing the Plan. The 
Bureaus also clarify the obligation to report data with respect to 
CAIs. The Petition is denied in all other respects.
    11. Deadline Extension. The Bureaus grant the Petition to the 
extent that it seeks a deadline extension and extend the filing 
deadline for the initial map data submission from March 1, 2018, to

[[Page 12757]]

July 1, 2018. On February 1, 2018, the Office of Management and Budget 
approved the collection under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) and the 
rules became effective on February 15, 2018. The Bureaus find that an 
extension of the deadline under section 54.316 is appropriate in this 
case because a July 1, 2018 deadline will ensure that carriers will 
have sufficient time following the recent PRA approval to finalize any 
data submitted into the High Cost Universal Service Broadband (HUBB) 
portal and aligns with the Form 481 filing deadline. Additionally, 
carriers are submitting middle-mile data to the HUBB portal for the 
first time, and carriers and USAC may need additional time to address 
any problems or concerns that may arise at the time of filing. This 
extension will also allow carriers additional time to gather as 
accurate data as possible in the first filing cycle. Alaska Plan 
participants will now have nearly ten months of preparation time to 
gather and submit the data from the release of the initial Map 
Instructions. This extension does not affect the filing deadline in 
subsequent years or the March 1, 2018 deadline for the submission of 
Alaska wireline location data.
    12. Accuracy. The Bureaus grant in part and deny in part ATA's 
request to collect and submit data at a lower level of accuracy than 
7.6 meters. Specifically, the Bureaus permit carriers to collect and 
submit ``estimated'' data to within 50 meters of accuracy for the 
filing due by July 1, 2018 where data at 7.6 meters is unavailable. 
This relief is appropriate given the recent effective date of the data 
collection in February combined with the challenging weather conditions 
in Alaska, and the fact that ``estimated'' data (in the limited cases 
where 7.6-meter data is unavailable) for the 2018 submission will not 
inhibit efforts of the Bureaus to implement the Plan.
    13. The Bureaus have authority to set an accuracy threshold in the 
instructions. Indeed, ATA submitted its own, alternative 1000-meter 
threshold. The Commission delegated to the Bureaus the authority to 
provide a common format for map submissions, which necessarily includes 
a mutually understood accuracy standard. Maps cannot be properly 
evaluated without a mutually understood and agreed upon accuracy 
standard. As explained in the following, both the 50-meter and 7.6-
meter accuracy standards meet that test.
    14. The Bureaus conclude that, on balance, the overall benefit of 
the data accuracy requirements, as modified here, outweighs any burden 
on carriers. While the Bureaus need to and will, under these modified 
instructions, obtain data accurate to 7.6 meters by 2019, the relief 
the Bureaus provide will greatly reduce carriers' burden to collect 
that data. A one-year delay in providing data at a 7.6-meter level of 
accuracy should allow ATA members to collect and submit estimated data 
using desktop software while largely allowing the collection of more 
accurate data through site visits as necessary in the normal course of 
business. Carrier estimated data, combined with 7.6-meter data already 
in the carriers' possession, are sufficient for the Bureaus to assess 
carriers' compliance, infrastructure limitations, and progress at the 
initial stages of the first five-year plan.
    15. For the filings due in 2018, carriers may provide an initial 
``estimate'' for nodes and links based on data generated by generally 
available desktop software. Where a carrier lacks sufficient internal 
digital data to comply with the 7.6-meter accuracy requirement for all 
or a portion of its filed network facilities, that carrier may submit 
estimated data at least as accurate as Google Earth (i.e., accurate to 
within 50 meters) and denote as estimates the relevant portion(s) of 
the network submitted. Where the carrier chooses to provide an 
estimate, it must certify in the HUBB portal, at the time of filing, 
that it does not possess data meeting the 7.6-meter requirement. 
Carriers must update any such estimated data no later than their filing 
due March 1, 2019, with data meeting the 7.6-meter requirement. 
Similarly, any new data submitted starting in March 1, 2019 (i.e., for 
network facilities deployed in 2018) and in subsequent filing years 
must meet the 7.6-meter accuracy requirement. If a carrier currently 
has internal digital data in its possession for facilities deployed in 
2017 or earlier that meet the accuracy requirement, it must file that 
data by July 1, 2018.
    16. The Bureaus reject ATA's contention that information at the 
7.6-meter level of accuracy is not necessary for the purposes of the 
map collection. The Bureaus' review of revised performance plans in 
2020 alongside maps accurate to 7.6 meters provides an important 
backstop to ensure carriers maximize their commitments and service 
levels to Alaskans. The 7.6-meter standard is critical for obtaining a 
complete picture of facilities' locations in relation to other existing 
data. It is a commonly-used mapping standard for Commission high-cost 
data, is necessary for the Bureaus to maintain compatibility with 
census boundary and road data for the census-block based Alaska Plan, 
and will allow the Bureau to fully identify duplicative facilities.
    17. Even in the absence of the relief provided here, the Bureaus 
reject ATA's argument that the burden of the 7.6-meter standard 
outweighs the benefit because ATA has not adequately demonstrated the 
scope of its burden to collect such information. ATA's evidence that 
the 7.6-meter level of accuracy is too burdensome largely relies on two 
carrier-employee declarations, stating that not all of their data is 
stored at the 7.6-meter accuracy level. ATA also notes that the FAA 
requires collection of some cell tower information at a 6.1 meter 
accuracy level. Moreover, all of Alaska has wide area augmentation 
system (WAAS) coverage 100 percent of the time with the exception of 
the southwestern most Aleutian Islands, which has this coverage at 
least 95 percent of the time, allowing use by non-expert personnel of 
inexpensive handheld devices accurate up to three meters.
    18. For similar reasons, the Bureaus also reject ATA's counter-
proposal that the Bureaus collect data at the 1000-meter accuracy 
level. ATA's proposed standard is far too inaccurate for the map data 
collection, as two filers filing the same node could show that node to 
be more than a mile apart from each other, which could significantly 
affect Bureaus' understanding of which census blocks have what 
facilities and what facilities are duplicates. Moreover, as noted, 
generally available desktop applications provide sufficient accuracy to 
meet the 50-meter estimate standard described above.
    19. Community Anchor Institutions. The Bureaus grant the Petition 
in part to clarify the collection of CAI data. The Bureaus clarify that 
carriers need only submit those CAIs and associated links that fall 
within the statutory definition of a CAI. Furthermore, in the initial 
collection due July 1, 2018, carriers must submit all CAIs served by 
fiber or wireless connections. In subsequent years, carriers must 
submit any additional CAIs and associated links served by fiber or 
wireless connections that are being used or will be used to support 
their service in eligible areas. To the extent that CAI data does not 
fall under these limiting criteria, it is not reportable. The Bureaus 
otherwise deny the Petition with respect to ATA's request to limit the 
submission of CAI data.
    20. First, the Bureaus grant the Petition in part to clarify that 
reportable CAIs are limited to those CAIs that fall within the 
definition of CAI in 47 U.S.C. 1305(b)(3)(A) that the Commission 
adopted in the USF/ICC Transformation

[[Page 12758]]

Order, 76 FR 73830, November 29, 2011. As such, this data collection is 
limited to the type of CAIs that carriers would report pursuant to 47 
CFR 54.313(f)(1)(ii). Because rate-of-return carriers are already 
reporting the addresses of many of these CAIs on their FCC Form 481, 
carriers may face a reduced burden when submitting latitude and 
longitude of these same CAIs and the links connecting these 
institutions to other nodes in their networks for mapping purposes.
    21. Second, consistent with the Alaska Plan Order, the Bureaus make 
clear that in the initial collection, carriers must submit data 
regarding any CAIs served by fiber or wireless connections. This 
limitation is consistent with the plain language of section 
54.316(a)(6), which states that Alaska Plan participants ``shall submit 
fiber network maps or microwave network maps covering eligible areas'' 
for the purpose of tracking carriers' access to these facilities that 
would allow them to provide 10/1 Mbps for all Alaskans. In subsequent 
years, carriers must submit CAIs served by connections that ``are or 
will be used'' to support service in their eligible areas. This would 
include, at a minimum, those instances where the carrier has actual 
plans to use the CAI and links to extend the network. CAIs served by 
connections that ``are or will be used'' in this manner are in fact 
``middle mile'' and/or ``backhaul'' within the meaning of the Alaska 
Plan Order and are therefore subject to collection. CAIs connected to 
high-capacity links may be used to expand service to underserved and 
unserved communities. Consequently, information regarding CAIs 
connected by such facilities is necessary for the Commission to 
understand whether adequate facilities exist to support additional 
last-mile connections and for the evaluation of carriers' performance--
consistent with the purpose of the map collection.
    22. The Bureaus deny ATA's Petition to the extent it seeks to 
exclude the reporting of CAIs which meet these criteria. ATA argues 
that all CAIs are ``last-mile'' facilities and therefore should not be 
part of the map collection except in limited circumstances. ATA's 
position is not consistent with the Alaska Plan Order. ATA argues that 
the Bureaus' reliance on aggregation points to justify reporting some 
nodes ``proves too much'' because a ``home's or business's Wi-Fi router 
is an initial aggregation point.'' But ATA's argument contravenes its 
own cited precedent, which separates the network based on points of 
traffic aggregation with similar network demand. In many instances, 
CAIs' position in carriers' network architecture is more akin to 
wireless towers aggregating community-wide traffic than a last-mile 
home or smartphone user. Indeed, ATA provides a conceptual network map 
in its Petition equating schools with wireless towers. This model and 
the ACAM are consistent with the understanding that both a CAI and a 
wireless tower can and do aggregate community-wide multi-user traffic. 
In contrast, a home or small business Wi-Fi router typically serves a 
single end-user location with only a handful of end-users, and it does 
not aggregate community-wide multi-user traffic.
    23. In light of the foregoing discussion, the Bureaus reject ATA's 
counter-proposal to limit the collection of nodes to cell towers and 
CAIs that are outside of the exchange but connect to a central office 
in another exchange. In part because of the vast size of many exchanges 
in Alaska, knowing whether the central office in an exchange is fiber-
fed does not provide a sufficiently granular picture of the potential 
middle-mile ``weak points'' or capabilities that could affect the 
ability of a carrier to meet its commitments or future commitments.

Federal Communications Commission.
Kris A. Monteith,
Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau.
[FR Doc. 2018-05881 Filed 3-22-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6712-01-P