Kansas RLECs Seek More Details on USF Model Support; Others Cite Data 'Flurry'

face a "tough decision" whether to opt into A-CAM by Nov. 1. "Without timely provision of full details on and better, clearer guidance on the impacts of various model definitions, new expense limitations, support for standalone broadband, and implementation of budget constraints for both support paths, some carriers could be forced to make this decision without sufficient information," said an NTCA filing posted Thursday in docket 10-90 on a meeting a dozen Kansas RLEC officials, Roberts and aides had with Commissioner Ajit Pai and his Chief of Staff Matthew Berry. They also expressed concern that A-CAM implementation not have negative unintended consequences on carriers that don't receive model-based support, including their funding and ability to offer stand-alone broadband at rates that are reasonably comparable to urban rates. In a separate meeting with Pai and Berry, the Iowa Communications Alliance board noted the "recent flurry of Commission data releases to be used by companies in determining whether to elect the voluntary ACAM model," said an ICA filing. "The Alliance delegation discussed challenges in analyzing all of this recently-released data prior to making their election to utilize the model-based methodology." They also cited high broadband deployment costs, the uncertainty of FCC budget control mechanisms, a "parent trap" rule preventing some RLECs from obtaining any type of model-based support in some areas, and the "continuing frustrations" and financial fallout from long-distance companies engaging in "self-help" practices that deviate from tariffs and dispute mechanisms.