RLECs Back FCC Draft Offering More USF Support for More Broadband Buildout
Rural telco groups endorsed a draft FCC order to offer increased USF support to rate-of-return carriers in exchange for more 25/3 Mbps broadband deployment, tentatively set for a Dec. 12 vote (see 1811210032). The draft "would take substantial steps toward…
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!
fulfillment of statutory mandates with respect to predictability and sufficiency, promote the effectiveness of existing USF support mechanisms," promote network investment, and ensure service availability "on a reasonably comparable basis between rural and urban areas," filed NTCA, on meetings with aides to all commissioners and with Wireline Bureau staffers (here and here), posted through Friday in docket 10-90. Meeting aides to Chairman Ajit Pai and Mike O'Rielly, ITTA backed "increased funding for A-CAM [Alternative Connect America Cost Model] carriers and attendant commitments to buildout at additional locations at speeds of 25/3 Mbps; ensuring sufficient and predictable support for legacy rate-of-return carriers; a new model offer for legacy carriers; and separate budgets for the model-based and legacy programs." Nebraska A-CAM Companies support "adoption of a voluntary offer of additional funding up to $200/month per location for existing A-CAM recipients, with modified deployment obligations, as set forth in the draft order," filed consultant Carol Mattey, on meetings with O'Rielly and aides to all commissioners (here and here). They backed "extending a new offer of A-CAM support to all companies not currently receiving A-CAM support and would not limit such an offer to those companies that would receive less support under the model than their current support." USTelecom discussed with O'Rielly aides how the draft compared with proposals submitted by associations and "addressed the potential impacts of a second ACAM offer and the lack of a challenge process in determining overlap."