STATEMENT OF
COMMISSIONER MICHAEL O’RIELLY
Re: Connect America Fund, WC Docket No. 10-90, Universal Service Reform – Mobility Fund, WT 
Docket No. 10-208, Connect America Fund—Alaska Plan, WC Docket No. 16-271.
Today the Commission fulfills its commitment to advance universal service for a large segment 
of consumers in Alaska by adopting a plan to expand broadband deployment by rural carriers and wireless 
providers in the state.  
Having traveled throughout much of Alaska in both my current and former capacities, I know
firsthand that Alaska is unique compared to the “lower 48” states. The sheer size and uncompromising 
terrain leave many communities and villages isolated, without roads to connect them. Supplies must be 
shipped in by airplanes, helicopters, boats, or barges, and these services may be available only by charter 
making deliveries both infrequent and expensive. And then there are the weather challenges, which result
in substantially shortened construction and repair seasons. These factors, combined with a population 
distribution heavily skewed towards Anchorage, make serving the sparsely populated rural and isolated 
areas very complicated and expensive.  In fact, the costs to deploy broadband under these circumstances 
are substantial, and have been well-documented in the record.  
In short, much of Alaska is a remote area unto itself.  Indeed, it is enough of an outlier that high-
cost programs adopted or proposed for the lower 48 states, such as Mobility Fund Phase II, simply will 
not work for most, if not all, of the carriers in Alaska, and would leave far too many consumers unserved.  
Moreover, the mere inclusion of Alaska in other USF programs can skew the data and outcomes so much 
as to undermine the entire functionality of the programs.  Therefore, the order adopts an alternative 
Alaska-only solution that still comports with our universal service principles and policies.  
Operating within an overall budget, providers have the option to obtain a fixed level of funding 
for a defined term in exchange for committing to deployment obligations that are tailored to each Alaska 
provider’s circumstances.  Over the past year, and as evidenced through many ex partes, staff has sought 
to ensure that the companies provide the maximum possible deployment for the dollars provided.  This 
means more broadband buildout to more Alaskans.  
Further, to ensure accountability and oversight for the funding received, providers will be 
required to report on the locations served.  They will also report how much they are spending on middle 
mile in order to meet their last mile build out obligations, and they will show where middle mile is being 
deployed.  While the Commission does not operate or directly fund middle mile infrastructure builds, the 
plan before us will complement private efforts in the state to improve middle mile availability.  In all 
fairness, the solution to any middle mile issue is not just one of allocating funding as past efforts have had 
a devastating impact on competition in the marketplace, including in Alaska.
Moreover, funding will be focused on eligible areas of Alaska that need it most.  Similar to prior 
decisions, funding will be shifted to support broadband infrastructure in areas lacking an unsubsidized 
provider. In addition, “non-remote” funding that had been provided, typically in more populated areas, 
will be retargeted, through an auction, to remote areas that lack service, helping ensure that unserved 
consumers in these particularly hard to reach areas are not left behind. In short, the package of reforms is 
similar to structures adopted for several other parts of the high-cost program, while making certain 
necessary adjustments to reflect the specific challenges of serving Alaska.
I am particularly appreciative that we were able to work with the carriers and their association on 
a way to implement our competitive overlap policy in Alaska, especially for the wireless component of 
the plan, in a manner that is tough but fair.  Given the number of consumers that are completely unserved, 
it is critical not only to maintain and upgrade networks, but also to expand them to reach new consumers.  
At the same time, I recognize that 4G LTE deployment in Alaska lags significantly behind the lower 48 
states.  The Commission’s Eighteenth Mobile Wireless Competition Report shows that 99.6 percent of 
Americans have access to 4G LTE service and nearly that many—97.8 percent—are covered by two or 
more providers.  In contrast, there is no 4G LTE overlap by eligible carriers in Alaska.  Even under these 
challenging circumstances, however, we understand that overlaps could develop in some places in the 
future, so we need to have a plan in place to address them.  
The order resolves the issue by deciding that, in five years, the Commission will take another 
look at where the funding is being used.  In doing so, the item reaffirms the important principle that 
funding multiple competitors in the same area will not be permitted.  In this case, if overlaps were to 
develop, duplicative funding in such areas will be eliminated.  To ensure this happens, the Commission is 
issuing an FNPRM now to determine the best way to eliminate any overlap funding to the extent it 
develops.  This is an issue where there was no immediate consensus amongst the Commissioners or the 
carriers, so the FNPRM seeks comment on several ideas, including those put forward by me and my 
colleagues.  It also seeks comment on ways to comply with the Commission’s policy of not providing 
support where there is an unsubsidized provider.  
While this solution was not my preferred one and represents a significant compromise on my part, 
I recognize that it will provide the stability and certainty needed to promote comprehensive investment in 
broadband infrastructure for consumers in one of the hardest to serve states.  Moreover, given the 
interconnectedness of the plan, we had to address both the wireline and wireless parts at the same time, 
and such a plan will only work if the carriers themselves support it and make it work.    
I thank the Chairman and staff for considering my views and addressing my concerns to the 
greatest extent possible.  I hope to continue to work with the Chairman and my colleagues to wrap up the 
other pending commitment on Alaska: adopting performance obligations for the price cap carrier in the 
state.  More importantly, I look forward to carriers in Alaska meeting their commitments to expand 
broadband to reach a greater portion of its population.