The MN PUC today met to discuss LTD Broadband’s annual Eligible Telecommunications Carriers (ETC) certification related to CAFII funding. I’ll paste my notes (however scattered) and related background information below. The quick take is that the MN PUC wanted to decide on a number of items (listed directly below). They agreed on options 1,3,4,6 and 8, with some modification on number 4. The main change would be adding a note to indicate that the MN PUC is only recertifying the ETC for this purpose. Not in light with anything happening with LTD Broadband and RDOF money.

Does the Commission have sufficient documentation through the filed FCC form 481 to be assured that the high cost funds received by each ETCs have been, and will be, used for their intended purpose, pursuant to 47 C.F.R. 54.314?

1.Certify all companies as indicated in Tables 1, 2, and 4 of Attachment A of the staff briefing papers (Department).

OR

2. Recertify all companies as indicated in Tables 1, 2, and 4 of Attachment A of the staff briefing papers except for the following, which shall not be recertified: [specify any ETCs that are not being recertified].

AND

3. Provide USAC with a list of carriers (including their SACs) that should be certified in a letter to the FCC (Department). Should the Commission certify LTD Broadband for CAF II Funding Program?

Should the Commission certify LTD Broadband for CAF II Funding Program?

4. Certify LTD Broadband to continue to receive CAF II funding as was done by the Commission in Docket No. P999/PR-22-8.

OR
5. Do not certify LTD Broadband to continue to receive CAF II funding and defer certification on this carrier (Department). Should the Commission order all high-cost funding program ETCs to submit Performance Measure (PM) Testing results with all future 481 filings?

Should the Commission order high cost funding program ETCs to submit Performance Measure (PM) Testing results with all future 481 filings?

6. Require all high-cost funding recipients to submit Performance Measure (PM) Testing results with all future 481 filings (Department).
OR
7. Do not require all high-cost funding recipients to submit Performance Measure (PM) Testing results with all future 481 filings. Should the Commission continue to require quarterly filings of Tribal engagement from the ETCs consistent with the requirements in the Commission’s October 21, 2021 and November 8, 2022 Orders?

Should the Commission continue to require quarterly filings of Tribal engagement from the ETCs consistent with the requirements in the Commission’s Oct 21, 2021 and Nov 8, 2022 orders?
8. Continue to require quarterly filings of Tribal engagement from the ETCs consistent with the requirements in the Commission’s October 21, 2021 and November 8, 2022 Orders. (Department)

(You can related materials on the MN PUC site.)

More notes:

Details 2023-143 ** P999/PR-23-8 Local Exchange Carriers; Eligible Telecommunications Carriers In the Matter of Annual Certification Related to Eligible Telecommunications Carriers’ (ETCs) Use of the Federal Universal Service Support Required Pursuant to C.F.R. 54.313. Does the Commission have sufficient documentation through the filed FCC Form 481 to be assured that the high-cost funds received by each ETCs have been, and will be, used for their intended purpose, pursuant to 47 C.F.R. § 54.314? (PUC: Fournier

 

There’s background on the topic. Here are the Decision options:

 

Certify all companies as indicated in Tables 1, 2, and 4 of Attachment A of the staff briefing papers (Department). OR 2. Recertify all companies as indicated in Tables 1, 2, and 4 of Attachment A of the staff briefing papers except for the following, which shall not be recertified: [specify any ETCs that are not being recertified]. AND 3. Provide USAC with a list of carriers (including their SACs) that should be certified in a letter to the FCC (Department). Should the Commission certify LTD Broadband for CAF II Funding Program? 4. Certify LTD Broadband to continue to receive CAF II funding as was done by the Commission in Docket No. P999/PR-22-8. OR 5. Do not certify LTD Broadband to continue to receive CAF II funding and defer certification on this carrier (Department). Should the Commission order all high-cost funding program ETCs to submit Performance Measure (PM) Testing results with all future 481 filings? 6. Require all high-cost funding recipients to submit Performance Measure (PM) Testing results with all future 481 filings (Department). OR 7. Do not require all high-cost funding recipients to submit Performance Measure (PM) Testing results with all future 481 filings. Should the Commission continue to require quarterly filings of Tribal engagement from the ETCs consistent with the requirements in the Commission’s October 21, 2021 and November 8, 2022 Orders? 8. Continue to require quarterly filings of Tribal engagement from the ETCs consistent with the requirements in the Commission’s October 21, 2021 and November 8, 2022 Orders. (Department)

 

 

 

Dep pf Commerce:

Dep said don’t recertify to preserve the status quo. USAC designation is binary. LTD Broadband might use recertification as an endorsement with the FCC to persuade them in other matters. Recertification is not necessary since LTD did not received high cost dollars last year,

 

MTA:

We agree on decisions 1, 3 and 5. For 6 and 7 We could do an affidavit saying we’re in compliance.

 

 

LTD Broadband:

Certification for ETC is required for 2022 and 2024, when we do expect to received funding. There’s no allegations that we’re not meeting milestones or serving people.

 

Q: The Dep is concerned that ETC status would give your lawyers a reason to tell the FCC that everything was OK.

A: We don’t have any objection to making it clear that ETC is for CAFII only. The FCC seems to be on the road to doing nothing in terms of RDOF – so it’s not likely that our lawyers would have opportunity to use it.
A: The problem is that the certification seems to be a yes/no issue not really one where there’s an opportunity to add a footnote.

 

Dec option 4 Proposal: “State in the cover letter that LTD is still under review.” Apparently there is a place to submit a cover letter in the USAC process.

LTD suggestion: the compromise could be that we get certified but we won’t file a letter with FCC regarding the recertification.
Dep comments: that would be fine but not enough.

 

Chair: Thanks MTA for looking for compromise for 6 and 7. Perhaps you can submit comments. We need more time to think about the implications.

Chair: We will continue to get quarterly filing for tribal areas until we get feedback from them. If you want to bring this up again next year you might get feedback.

Looking at agreeing with:

1,3,4,6 and 8