FCC Denies ACA Petition to Reconsider CAF II Funding Model

was over the model used to come up with the amount price-cap carriers will be offered to serve locations in their service territory that are above a specified funding benchmark, but below an extremely high-cost benchmark, said the order adopted Nov. 5 and posted Wednesday in docket 10-90. The area also can't be served by a competing, unsubsidized provider to be eligible for funding, the order said. ACA had argued the 8.5 percent cost of money used in the model was too high because it assumed interest rates will increase. Though ACA believed the rates will remain low, the commission was not persuaded “ACA’s predictions regarding future interest rates are more valid than the Bureau’s well-reasoned predictive judgment,” the order said. The commission was also not persuaded that “using a slightly lower cost of money would have a material impact on achievement of the Commission’s universal service goals,” the order said. The Wireline Bureau didn't overstep its authority and its decisions were not “clearly in error,” O’Rielly said in a statement, but he believed a lower cost of money would “be a more accurate prediction of interest rates over five years.” O’Rielly also said he disagreed with “the assumption, implicit in the analysis" that the CAF should aim to support more locations even if they're lower cost. The program's purpose shouldn’t be to “maximize the number of locations that receive a subsidy,” he said, but to “focus support on locations that are truly high-cost and are in areas that are not served or are unlikely to be served by a competing provider.” ACA declined comment on Thursday.