Site Search

Entries in USF/ICC Reform (83)

Monday
Apr162012

West River Coop Repeatedly Asks FCC to Correct QRA Data

Incorrect Geographical Data May Place Carriers in the Wrong Subgroups

South Dakota RLEC West River Cooperative Telephone Company (West River) is letting the FCC know that certain data used in quantile regression analysis is just plain wrong—and the impacts to the company will be frighteningly severe unless the FCC expeditiously corrects the mistakes. Despite several meetings with FCC staff and letters explaining the problem, (most recently a letter filed on April 10, 2012) West River laments that “no response has been received.” What little advice the FCC has provided for data correction has been just as frustrating. The FCC suggests that companies who notice incorrect data about their study areas file a waiver—a process that JSICA has explained is no easy (or cheap) task.

In West River’s April 10 letter to the FCC, the company explains that the FCC’s model shows that West River’s service area is 260.557 square miles, but it is actually 6,209 square miles. Additionally, FCC data shows 564 housing units in the West River area, but the real number is 3526. These errors indicate the West River’s HCLS will be capped July 1, and the caps will cause “significant, immediate and irreparable financial harm to the cooperative.” West River believes it has been placed in a group of “similarly situated carriers” of which it should not technically belong.

West River brought this issue to the FCC’s attention nearly two months ago—first in FNPRM reply comments filed by the South Dakota Telecommunications Association. A follow-up March 2 letter explains, “The prospect that this inaccurate data may be relied upon for purpose of determining future high cost funding distributions to West River Cooperative Telephone Company is a matter of great concern and we would like to have some assurance that the incorrect input data will be corrected.”

On March 19, representatives from West River and another South Dakota RLEC, Kennebec Telephone Company, along with individuals from South Dakota Telecommunications Association and Consortia Consulting, further explained the data inaccuracies to the FCC. Kennebec also identified inaccurate housing unit and geographical area data. The companies argued, “Errors by a factor of 2.4x and 23.8x, respectively, could lead to placement of the Companies in an incorrect group of ‘similarly situated’ peers…those incorrect placements could lead to devastating financial impacts for each company.”

Rather than saying “No problem, we will fix the errors post haste;” the FCC reportedly asked the companies if they would be willing to participate in “data collection activities that would investigate study areas and service area boundaries;” and recommended that the companies file a waiver. In other words, the FCC has not established an actual process to correct errors, no matter how significant of an impact the FCC’s own data inaccuracies will have on individual companies. Adding insult to injury, the FCC expects companies who find data errors to bear the burden of ensuring that the problems are fixed in advance of the July 1 cap. The companies respond, “West River and Kennebec, impacted by data errors outside of their control, should not have to face the cost, or uncertainty, of a waiver process to get their inaccurate data corrected.”

On April 11, representatives from the Nebraska Rural Independent Companies met with FCC staff to discuss how the FCC can improve the QRA methodology—“at a minimum the staff should adopt a procedure for correcting exchange boundary data, modify the regression equation to use cost per loop as the dependent variable and to include density as an independent variable, consolidate the caps into one overall cost per loop cap or at most one for investment and one for expenses, and apply consistent adjustments to the HCL formula when investment or expenses are capped.” 

The NRIC representatives’ presentation to the FCC acknowledged that a policy goal for regression caps should be to “provide incentives for companies to invest in broadband-capable plant for unserved and underserved areas,” and to ensure that companies invest in efficient technology. However, the methodology contains flaws that concern NRIC, including data types and data errors, the regression formula, algebraic errors, and the frequency of recalculating the caps. NRIC believes that the FCC can easily obtain more reliable exchange boundary maps, some of which “are publicly available on the Internet.” NRIC echoed West River’s concern that “waivers are an inappropriate means to handle data errors.”

Rural independent telecom providers and their allies are increasingly pressuring the FCC to modify QRA and correct the myriad inexcusable errors. Developing an easy process for RLECs to seek corrections so that they are not improperly placed in carrier subgroups and capped without merit seems like a reasonable place for the FCC to start.

Wednesday
Apr112012

In the “I Dare You” Game of USF Waivers, RLECs Will Win or Fold 

The Few Waivers Filed Show the Importance of Having a "Hook"

Out of all of the frustrating aspects of the USF/ICC Transformation Order and FNPRM, the waiver process ranks high on the list, yet it gets less attention than issues like regression analysis and bill-and-keep. Why is it so frustrating? Well, a waiver essentially costs small companies tens of thousands of dollars to prepare and file, and there is no guarantee that the FCC will grant the requested relief. It is a very expensive and cumbersome undertaking to tell the FCC that your company is facing financial insolvency because of the FCC’s actions.

Nevertheless, waiver momentum has picked up a bit over the last few weeks with new filings, letters of intent, and even support from friends in high places—Congress—for one waiver. FCC representatives have often said if a company doesn’t like the rules, it can file a waiver; but this is easier said than done. John Staurulakis, Inc. vice president John Kuykendall described the waiver process “as though the Wireline Bureau is taking an ‘I dare you’ approach to filing waivers. On one hand, the Bureau is saying that the USF/ICC Order must not be that bad since only a few carriers have sought waivers to be exempted from the reforms. On the other hand, the Bureau knows that once a company files a waiver, the petition will then be subjected to a ‘rigorous, thorough and searching review comparable to a total earnings review’ and that the bar which must be attained for the waiver to be granted is so high that few, if any, carriers can meet it.”

Understanding this complicated dynamic is important if you want to play the waiver game with the FCC, but is there a way to know with certainty if your costly and burdensome waiver will be granted? Not unless you have a crystal ball, but for now it appears as though waiver filers are predominantly companies with a specific “hook” that will at the very least get the FCC’s attention. I came across an article last week about the college admissions process which explained that there are countless highly qualified students applying to top colleges, but they are denied because they do not have some unusual or unique “hook.” These “unhooked” kids look great on paper—they got good grades, played sports, led student government and extracurricular groups—but they might not be internationally ranked gymnasts or National Merit scholars, which a school with high-bar admission standards is looking for (like the FCC in its waiver acceptance process). Back to the point—I couldn’t help but think about how the “unhooked” RLECs will fare if they go forward with filing waivers, especially in comparison to “hooked” companies like Big Bend Telephone Company (BBTC) and Windy City Cellular (WCC).

In February, West Texas-based BBTC filed a petition for a waiver of three USF rules including the $250 monthly cap and regression analysis. Since filing, BBTC’s waiver has attracted considerable attention due to the company’s hook: border security is at risk if BBTC loses its USF support. BBTC is the only service provider in a massive and geographically unrelenting area of West Texas, and the company provides service to dozens of local, state, and federal institutions including the Texas Rangers, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Defense, the Federal Aviation Administration, and the Texas Department of Transportation. BBTC’s hook turned heads in Congress at the state and federal level.

Texas State Representative Pete Gallego, who represents BBTC’s district, wrote to the FCC in support of BBTC’s waiver. Gallego explained, “BBTC has overcome and continues to manage high cost challenges through an innovative and cost-effective combination of wireline, wireless and satellite solutions that make BBTC a truly High Cost Provider in comparison to other rural communications companies both in the state and the nation.” Gallego added, “BBTC is the epitome of why universal service was created and is still needed today.” He is especially concerned about the impact on 911 emergency services, and he expresses that he “cannot imagine a scenario in which basic communications will be lost in such a wide, diverse, and vital segment of the country. We may reside in rural America, but we deserve the same voice and broadband service found in cities at reasonable rates. Indeed, universal service was designed and intended for the benefit of people in rural America—people like the consumers of BBTC.”

The Texas Border Sheriff’s Coalition also wrote to the FCC in support of BBTC’s waiver, arguing that “Unless the Commission waives its rules as applied to Big Bend, we are concerned that the primary communications network capable of serving a number of our members needs and the needs of other federal and state institutions tasked with protecting a majority of the Texas border will be shut off and, as a result, border security would be fundamentally undermined by this disruption in communications.” Senators John Cornyn (R-TX) and Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) also chimed in, commenting “We understand that the Commission must be judicious in its granting of waivers from the USF/ICC Transformation Order lest excessive waivers undermine the larger reforms set forth in the Order…In our estimation, Big Bend’s situation is unique, and we urge the Commission to carefully and seriously consider Big Bend’s waiver petition.”

Nearly 4000 miles across the continent from BBTC, Adak Alaska-based Windy City Cellular also appears to have a clear hook: it is the only service provider to completely cover a remote island prone to inhospitable weather conditions and home to very few permanent residents. On April 3, WCC filed a petition for a waiver of the $3,000 annual per-line cap on CETC support, which WCC claims slashed the company’s funding by 84% in the flicker of time since the Order was passed last fall. WCC’s opening statement in its waiver petition sets the stage for what follows: “Adak Island is located in an earthquake zone and in the vicinity of an active volcano. The area is mountainous, and is characterized by extreme weather conditions including cyclonic storms, wind gusts in excess of 100 knots, fog storms in the summer, and an average accumulation of more than eight feet of snow.”

WCC is the only telecommunications service provider that covers the entire Adak Island area, including a large wildlife refuge and the surrounding sea. Entities like the Marine Exchange, the Aleut Corporation, and the U.S. Geological Survey Volcano Observatory rely on WCC’s service, as well as the Island’s 326 permanent residents and the many seasonal fishers, hunters, and tourists. Adak Island is a former Naval Complex and once was home to over 6k residents, but the population has dwindled over the decades. However, WCC explains that there are “a large number of contractors in Adak who provide various critical governmental services relating to maritime safety, ordinance disposal, environmental remediation, asset evaluation, wildlife preservation, and environmental monitoring.” Adak is only accessible by twice-weekly flights (weather permitting) and once-yearly barges, and “Adak is undoubtedly one of the most remote, isolated and climactically inhospitable communities in the United States.”

WCC’s wireline parent Adak Eagle Enterprises (AEE) is also in trouble as a result of the USF/ICC Order, and it is expected that AEE will file its own waiver soon. WCC explains that AEE rebuilt an outdated and decayed military telecommunications network on the island after several other providers declined. As a result of WCC and AEE’s efforts and funding from RUS and USF, the island now has modern telecommunications services. However, absent a waiver, it will not. WCC is therefore requesting a limited waiver only until the Mobility Fund Phase II mechanism is implemented, and only for half of its previous amount of support ($880.09, the “bare minimum” to keep the lights on). WCC pleas to the FCC, “If a waiver of the annual cap is not expeditiously granted, the results will be catastrophic for the Adak area: (1) WCC will be forced to cease operations, causing customers to lose service with no terrestrial alternative, and roaming ability throughout the Adak area will be lost; (2) critical services, government functions, and public safety will be jeopardized; and (3) WCC will become insolvent, causing the loss of a critical number of jobs for the Adak area.” Like BBTC, WCC’s waiver is supported by a number of local institutions, such as the City of Adak and the Aleut Corporation.

An April 9 ex parte meeting following up with the FCC after the waiver filing emphasizes how important it is for the FCC to expeditiously grant WCC's requested relief. WCC argues that it now has only 12 weeks until it must shut down operations, and the crunch has already been felt during a recent wind and snow storm that knocked out the only remaining satellite in use causing customers to lose service for a full day.

BBTC and WCC indeed may represent some of the most severe outliers in the entire rural telecommunications industry—a point that both parties bring up in their waivers—but what about the companies who do not have such an obvious hook yet still risk becoming financially insolvent as a result of the FCC’s rules? Will the FCC only grant waivers in cases that are literally a life or death situation for rural consumers? Some companies are likely still studying whether or not they have a hook that they can exploit in a waiver filing, and others are waiting for the FCC to release the final details on regression analysis. PBT Telecom and Valley Telephone Cooperativeboth filed letters of intent notifying the FCC that they will file waivers if the regression analysis methodology proposed in the FNPRM is adopted without change.

The bottom line is that if you take on the FCC’s dare to file a waiver, you might want to think of it like you are applying to Harvard. You have all of the standard qualifications to be accepted, but you need to play up your unique hook as much as possible in order to stand out from the crowd. If at least 40% of RLECs can indeed show that regression analysis and other USF/ICC cuts will push their companies into financial ruin and customers will lose service, it will be a challenge to earn an illustrious spot on the FCC’s highly-coveted waiver acceptance list.

Feel free to discuss your thoughts on the waiver process on JSICA’s LinkedIn USF Forum.

Wednesday
Apr112012

Cordova Telephone: Where Rural Meets Cutting Edge in Alaska

Remote Cooperative Offers Broadband, WiMax, and Wi-Fi, while Questioning FCC Changes

This past January, Cordova, Alaska, made headlines for getting 20 feet of snow in nearly as many days. The town on the edge of Prince William Sound was declared a disaster area, and utility workers and emergency personnel scrambled to keep roads open and essential services running. But Cordova's residents are used to weather-related hurdles, and for Cordova Telephone Cooperative and Cordova Wireless Communications, weather and topography is a daily consideration that effects everything from line repairs and service to the co-op's business plan. “Weather-related situations like this are common here in Cordova,” said Paul Kelly, general manager and ceo of Cordova. “We’ve learned to rise above them with ingenuity, hard work and stubbornness.”

According to Kelly, being rural doesn't mean Cordova's member companies can't provide first-rate services. In fact, the location has required Cordova to get creative in order to offer broadband connectivity, cellular services, mobile broadband through WiMax, and even internet hot spots via a newly-launched WiFi Cloud in the town of Cordova. “Being in a remote community like Cordova, we will always face challenges concerning access to facilities,” Kelly said. “We use a combination of bush planes, four-wheelers, boats, helicopters and luck to access a great deal of our territory and remote sites. We also rely on bear spray to protect us when we arrive.”

This past August, CTC completed a $12m project, three years in the making, by rolling out 100 miles of undersea fiber optic cable. Kelly said this “finally connected our rural community to the rest of the world in a reliable way.” He explained that Cordova is a remote community which, despite being on the mainland, has no road to it. “We’ve relied on satellite to fulfill our community’s internet needs for many years, but have been working toward this accomplishment for some time,” Kelly said. Now the new fiber optic cable stretches from Cordova to Valdez, and it was deployed from a 200-foot barge over a “mere three days,” as Kelly said.

Marketing and public relations director Cathy Long said that the community is now better connected to the surrounding towns and the rest of the world, thanks to the undersea cable. Member companies now “have speeds and broadband capacity second to none—even better than many places in the lower 48,” Long said.

Completion of the fiber optic line also has bigger implications for the rural Alaskan cooperative: “This accomplishment now qualifies us for the 'new rules’ that the FCC has imposed in the USF and ICC reform order, as well as allows us to deliver the Internet and wireless experiences the modern-day customer has come to expect or take for granted,” Kelly said. Until now, the cost of transport was always the co-op's biggest challenge, but with the cable connection, that burden has been lessened.

The financial reprieve couldn't come at a better time, either, as changes to rural funding make the future uncertain. “We feel we are well positioned to weather the storm we saw coming,” Kelly said, “and our investment in facilities over the past several years will protect us from a good portion of the damage this order will cause the industry. We are also filing for a waiver in hopes of protecting our wireless company.”

But the RUS/ICC changes are already having an impact. “Lost funding will result in fewer jobs at CTC and CWC, and has already resulted in less investment being made in our network,” Kelly said. “Until we are told our past and future investments are protected and recoverable we have no choice but to severely curtail investment and employment.” He said that, like other rural telecom companies, Cordova was disappointed by the FCC's rural funding changes, but says the cooperative is “positioned better than most coming into this change.” Candidly, however, Kelly said, “We do expect our revenues to be impacted in the years to come, especially on the wireless side, and intend to file a waiver with the FCC concerning this order. We feel there is pertinent information that has not been taken into account when writing this new order, and hope to be a poster-child for rural telcos providing service in remote and isolated areas.”

Long reserved her strongest comments for the new FCC order, which she said conflicts with what rural telecom has been doing for decades. “For 90 years, rural telecoms—mostly cooperatives—invested as they were supposed to, using USF and RUS loans to connect rural America at prices comparable to urban areas,” Long said. “Now the FCC commonly refers to what we have done for 90 years as waste, fraud and abuse, yet the OIG audits performed prior to the formulation of the NBP identified almost no waste, fraud and abuse of the USF system whatsoever. The telecom industry was nearly 90% broadband capable and had been building out for years in a very responsible manner. That fact was grossly ignored in the NBP [National Broadband Plan] and credit has not been given by the administration for all the great work performed leading up to the FCC order.”

Nearly 100% of Cordova's member companies have had true broadband access to their businesses or homes for the past six years—“long before any National Broadband Plan,” Long said. Now, CTC “typically provides up to a 4-to-1 meg service to the home but can provide speeds up to 100 megs if there is a need,” Long said. “Take rates are very good and getting better each day as more people discover the Roku devices and over the top TV.”

The cooperative has also been working to expand into non-traditional services through wireless broadband and its wireless subsidiary, Cordova Wireless Communications. CWC just built a 100-foot cellular tower on Naked Island, and now it can provide GSM cellular service all across Prince William Sound. Long explained that “because Cordova’s economy is primarily based on commercial fishing, and many of its residents are commercial fishermen, this is a huge and needed accomplishment” for the community.

CTC's new WiMax service also allows for mobile broadband in Cordova, with plans to expand (via the Naked Island tower) to the Copper River Flatts fishing grounds. The area is also blanketed by the company's Wi-Fi Cloud. Long said these “hotspots are able to seamlessly hand-off to each other, similar to the way cell phone towers do. All this, and we are providing both WiMAX and WiFi Cloud access to all our broadband internet customers as a free service.”

Going forward, Long and Kelly both said that future investment was uncertain, due to the precariousness of rural funding. “Until we know our past and future recovery on investment under the rules is protected, CTC has no plans for future investment in-plant, and our wireless company will soon follow,” Long said. “There is never a business case to be made for investing in the most rural of rural areas without universal support.”

Monday
Apr092012

FCC Will Tackle Contributions, Complete the USF Reform Equation  

NPRM May Be Unveiled at April 27 Open Meeting

The FCC’s tentative agenda for its April 27, 2012 meeting includes a key item that could finally round out the National Broadband Plan goal of comprehensively reforming the Universal Service Fund: an NPRM to address the contributions side of the USF equation. Communications Daily reported on April 5 that “taking on the contributions factor is expected to be controversial.” However, most telecom industry stakeholders would also probably argue that contributions reform is both long overdue and necessary to balance the recent drastic changes to the distributions side. 

Some have started speculating on what could be included in the FNPRM. Multichannel news explained that “The goal of the reform…is to reduce the administrative burden on industry and the FCC, avoid arbitrage of the system—making similar services subject to similar contributions—and update the calculations of the payments to reflect a changing marketplace.” Administrative housecleaning proposals could be a direct result of pressure from USTelecom, which recently filed an ex parte letter that included an extensive list of recommendations for USF contributions reform. USTelecom did not, however, go as far as to recommend which entities should pay into an expanded contributions base—but this topic that will likely be addressed in the NPRM.

FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell has been championing contributions reform for quite some time, but the other two commissioners have seemed less enthusiastic about the challenge. McDowell told Communications Daily, “I would like to see an array of questions covering as many ideas as possible [in the NPRM]. At the same time, we should try to conclude an order quickly because the contribution factor has been sky high in the past two years in particular. At the end of the day that is a form of bill shock for American consumers.”

Using last year’s USF/ICC reform process as a template, we can likely expect a series of workshops, comment cycles, industry consensus efforts, and maybe even an FCC task force—all in tandem with ongoing efforts to construct a Connect America Fund for rate-of-return carriers and finalize other unresolved issues stemming from the USF/ICC Transformation Order.

How would you reform the USF contributions methodology to best reflect today’s (and tomorrow’s) telecommunications and broadband marketplace?

Thursday
Apr052012

Senators Speak Up: No More High-Cost USF/ICC Reductions for Now

Letter to FCC Requests Immediate Acknowledgement and Response

Nineteen Senators backed declarations by the RLEC industry about the unintended consequences of the FCC’s USF/ICC Transformation Order, scoring rural carriers some much-needed encouragement. The Senators sent a letter to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski on April 3, 2012 stating, “Unintended consequences on all carriers serving in rural areas can and should be alleviated by a formal FCC clarification that the Order will not be implemented in a manner that perpetuates unintended consequences.” The Senators ask the FCC to “be continually mindful of the need to encourage rural communications network investment,”—investments which have been made “in accordance with standards established by the Rural Utilities Service and in line with national policy objectives established by Congress in the Communications Act.”

The Senators note the importance of balancing the costs of the fund with the need to support rural carriers, and they list five areas of particular concern. They request the FCC to clarify:

  1. It will not implement additional reductions in USF and ICC support pursuant to the Further Notice until the implications of the reforms and reductions adopted in the recent Order can be properly evaluated and understood;
  2. It will ensure that lawfully incurred investments and operating expenses are not jeopardized by retroactive rule changes;
  3. It will not deem any investments or expenses unlawful, imprudent or not ‘used and useful’ when such investments have been made in accordance with federal agency standards and mandates;
  4. It will adopt a clear-cut and non-burdensome waiver mechanism that will allow cost recovery for carrier investments made in line with federal standards and mandates;
  5. It will adopt a sustainable and predictable broadband oriented Connect America Fund for rural areas served by smaller rural carriers as it did for those served by larger carriers.

At the conclusion of the letter, the Senators “ask that the FCC immediately acknowledge and appropriately respond to the outline above to ensure all rural consumers are able to fully participate in the universal communications network Congress has envisioned through a long history of statutory actions in this regard.”

The letter hits at the core of the RLEC industry’s concerns with the Order and especially the FNPRM. Of utmost importance is that the FCC takes the necessary time to evaluate the impacts of the Order before adopting additional cuts and caps to high-cost support—the Senators clearly get this. The added emphasis on wanting an immediate response from the FCC is certainly promising—I know many of us will be anxiously awaiting the FCC’s response, and hoping it will be more comprehensive than some FCC responses to Congressional members have been on USF reform and other issues (as an example, Genachowski recently responded to Congressional concerns about rural call termination issues by simply telling them to read the February 6 Declaratory Ruling).

NTCA members played a vital role in this letter, as these concerns were communicated to members of Congress at the Legislative and Policy Conference last month. NTCA ceo Shirley Bloomfield released a statement about the letter, stating: “We welcome the interest of these Congressional leaders in ensuring that the substantial changes to essential Universal Service Fund (USF) and intercarrier compensation (ICC) support mechanisms announced last fall by the FCC will be implemented correctly and well-understood, prior to adopting additional changes that may reduce such support even further for small rural carriers. We’re encouraged that these leaders understand the vital role that USF and ICC support mechanisms, together with Rural Utilities Service and other financing, play in making sure that consumers have access to affordable advanced communications services in hard-to-serve areas, and that rural networks can be upgraded over time, as federal law mandates.”

Bloomfield continued, “These letters to Chairman Genachowski demonstrate the clear support in Congress for ensuring that small, community-based telecommunications providers can continue to attract capital, make sound investments in sustainable broadband networks, and offer advanced services that create jobs and bring needed economic development to our nation’s rural communities.”

Senator John Tester (D-MT) signed the letter, and commented on his website, "Montana needs a broadband plan that offers our rural and frontier communities the same economic opportunities as urban areas. Access to broadband service means access to new and bigger markets for Main Street businesses and job opportunities. That's why I'm fighting to make sure any national plan doesn't discriminate against Montana and rural America." In addition to Sen. Tester, the bipartisan letter was signed by Senators Harkin (D-IA), Grassley (R-IA), Begich (D-AK), Thune (R-SD), Hatch (R-UT), Barasso (R-WY), Chambliss (R-GA), Hoeven (R-ND), Conrad (D-ND), Johnson (D-SD), Risch (R-ID), Crapo (R-ID), Baucus (D-MT), Merkley (D-OR), Levin (D-MI), Enzi (R-WY), Lee (R-UT), and Inhofe (R-OK).

And now we wait for the FCC to respond…