FCC Record, Volume 26, No. 22, Pages 17663 to 18414, Supplement (November 18, 2011) Page: 17,735
This book is part of the collection entitled: Federal Communications Commission Record and was provided to UNT Digital Library by the UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
process to develop a robust cost model for the Connect America Fund to accurately estimate the cost of a
modem voice and broadband capable network, and delegate to the Wireline Competition Bureau the
responsibility of completing it.
185. In light of the limited opportunity the public has received to review and modify the ABC
Coalition's proposed CQBAT model, we reject the group's suggestion that we adopt that model at this
time. The Commission has previously held that before any cost model may be "used to calculate the
forward-looking economic costs of providing universal service in rural, insular, and high cost areas," the
"model and all underlying data, formulae, computations, and software associated with the model must be
available to all interested parties for review and comment. All underlying data should be verifiable,
engineering assumptions reasonable, and outputs plausible."305 We see no reason to depart from this
conclusion here, and the CQBAT model, as presented to the Commission at this time, does not meet this
requirement.
186. We likewise reject the State Members' proposal to modify the Commission's existing
cost model to estimate the costs of modem voice and broadband-capable network. The Commission's
existing cost model does not fully reflect the costs associated with modern voice and broadband networks
because the model calculates cost based on engineering assumptions and equipment appropriate to the
1990s. In addition, modeling techniques and capabilities have advanced significantly since 1998, when
the Commission's existing high cost model was developed, and the new techniques could significantly
improve the accuracy of modeled costs in a new model relative to an updated version of the
Commission's existing model. For example, new models can estimate the costs of efficient routing along
roads in a way that the older model cannot.306 We see the benefits of leveraging our existing model to
rapidly deploy interim support, and we do just that for Phase I of the CAF. For the longer-term
disbursement of support, however, we conclude that it is preferable to use a more accurate, up to date
model based on modem techniques.
187. To expedite the process of finalizing the model to be used as part of the state-level
commitment, we delegate to the Wireline Competition Bureau the authority to select the specific
engineering cost model and associated inputs, consistent with this Order. For the reasons below, the
model should be of wireline technology and at a census block or smaller level. In other respects, we
direct the Wireline Competition Bureau to ensure that the model design maximizes the number of
locations that will receive robust, scalable broadband within the budgeted amounts. Specifically, the
model should direct funds to support 4 Mbps/l Mbps broadband service to all supported locations, subject
only to the waiver process for upstream speed described above, and should ensure that the most locations
possible receive a 6 Mbps/1.5 Mbps or faster service at the end of the five year term, consistent with the
CAF Phase II budget. The Wireline Competition Bureau's ultimate choice of a greenfield or brownfield
model, the modeled architecture, and the costs and inputs of that model should ensure that the public
interest obligations are achieved as cost-effectively as possible.
188. Geographic Granularity. We conclude that the CAF Phase II model should estimate
costs at a granular level - the census block or smaller -- in all areas of the country. Geographic
granularity is important in capturing the forward-looking costs associated with deploying broadband
305 Universal Service First Report and Order, 12 FCC Red at 8913, 8915, para. 250.
306 The State Members advocate that we adopt a road-constrained minimum spanning tree to route plant as an
"update" to the existing model, but we think this would change the model so fundamentally that the process
involved would be comparable to the adoption of a new model. We anticipate that the new model will adopt the
routing method the State Members suggest, although we delegate the final decision on this point to the Wireline
Competition Butreau.17735
Federal Communications Commission
FCC 11-161
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This book can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Book.
United States. Federal Communications Commission. FCC Record, Volume 26, No. 22, Pages 17663 to 18414, Supplement (November 18, 2011), book, 2011; Washington D.C.. (https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc154713/m1/83/: accessed April 25, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, UNT Digital Library, https://digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.