Alaska Communications Objects to Alaska Group's Wireless USF Proposal
Alaska Communications knocked an Alaska Telephone Association wireless USF proposal to the FCC, saying it provides a windfall for competitors -- and General Communications (GCI) in particular -- without clearly addressing middle-mile connectivity needs in rural Alaska. ATA's proposal for…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Communications Daily is required reading for senior executives at top telecom corporations, law firms, lobbying organizations, associations and government agencies (including the FCC). Join them today!
keeping annual USF support for rate-of-return wireline telcos in the state at $55 million for 10 years, subject to reasonable broadband deployment expectations, was appropriate, said an Alaska Communications (ACS) filing in docket 10-90. The price-cap telco said the rate-of-return plan is consistent with its own Connect America Fund Phase II proposal for the state's price-cap areas. But ACS objected to ATA's "extraordinary" proposal to expand annual USF support for wireless competitive eligible telecommunications carriers in the state to $100 million for 10 years. The telco called the billion-dollar proposal a "CETC enrichment plan" that would not ensure connectivity to remote areas, including 188 Alaskan Bush communities. "ATA does not endorse a specific proposal for closing Alaska’s middle mile gap, with defined deployment milestones and enforceable performance standards for capacity, speed, latency, and -- most important of all -- service affordability (as the Commission adopted for the rest of the nation)," ACS said. It said much of the $1 billion would "underwrite GCI's unregulated middle-mile monopoly," thus harming competition. The telco said the FCC should address ATA's proposals for wireless and rate-of-return carriers separately. If the CETC support is increased, ACS said, the FCC should attach safeguards, including "reasonable non-discriminatory access obligations, affiliate transaction rules, and cost-based pricing requirements, to ensure adequate and quality broadband service sufficient to meet current and project demand." GCI Senior Counsel Chris Nierman emailed in response Tuesday: “All of the providers supporting the Alaska Plan have demonstrated its need and benefits to consumers. Alaska’s unique circumstances require an integrated plan to address the challenges for Alaska. Just as the FCC saw fit to provide stability for non-contiguous price cap carriers like ACS, a similar approach is appropriate for Alaska’s other providers.” ATA didn't comment, but its representatives last week discussed its planned "Alaska Infrastructure Fund" with Wireline Bureau officials, said a Monday filing that included detailed proposed revisions to the FCC's recently updated rate-of-return USF rules (see 1603300065).