Tag Archives: LTD Broadband

MN PUC suspends LTD Broadband’s ETC designation and refers the case to Office of Administrative Hearings

Posted on by
Reply

Today the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission met to decide on two questions.

  1. Should the Commission lift the January 18, 2023, stay of this proceeding issued by the ALJ?
  2. Should the Commission grant the MREA and MTA’s (Petitioners’) motion to suspend LTD’s Rural Digital Opportunity Fund ETC designation previously granted by the Commission? (PUC: Fournier, McShane)

They were given a series of potential responses – akin to a multiple-choice exam or survey. They decided to move forward with the following:

  • 2 = Lift the stay imposed pursuant to the Administrative Law Judge’s January 18, 2023, Third Prehearing Order (Petitioners, Department, and OAG).
  • 2a = Refer the matter back to the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) with the request that the matter be restarted following the procedure outlined in the Commission’s August 16, 2022, Notice and Order for Hearing (Department).
  • 4 = Grant the Petitioner’s motion to suspend LTD’s RDOF ETC designation previously granted by the Commission (Petitioners, Department, and OAG).

Below are  extensive notes from the meeting. I am leaving them ASIS. The questions are fast-paced and detailed referring to solutions by their multiple choice numbers. I tried to supplement that with some additional descriptions for folks to follow along. Continue reading →

New documents for MN PUC meeting (Nov 16) on LTD Broadband ETC designation

Posted on by
Reply

The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission will be discussing the matter of LTD Broadband’s ETC designation on Thursday. I recently shared their staff briefing papers, which include detailed background of the issue and outline the possible decision options. A few days ago LTD Broadband ask the PUC to remove them from the agenda.

The Minnesota Attorney General has responded, essentially opposing LTD Broadband’s request and asking the PUC to suspect the expanded ETC designation until the matter is permanently resolved…

Dear Mr. Seuffert:
The Minnesota Department of Commerce opposes LTD Broadband’s recommendation to delay the above-referenced proceeding yet again. The Commission referred this matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings for a contested case more than fourteen months ago. As the Department detailed in its initial comments, ongoing concerns over LTD’s fitness to serve as an eligible telecommunications carrier (ETC) has created regulatory uncertainty that interferes with the ability of rural Minnesota communities and service providers to access other federal subsidies for broadband deployment.
There is no guarantee that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will issue a timely final decision regarding LTD’s administrative appeal. A final order arising from a similar appeal by StarLink, for example, has been pending with the FCC for at least two months. Moreover, if the FCC reverses its original denial of LTD’s long-form application, Minnesota will not have enough time to adequately evaluate LTD’s fitness to serve as an ETC in the areas of the state where it was a provisional Rural Digital Opportunity Fund (RDOF) winning bidder. Even an expedited contested case would, realistically, last at least several months during which federal subsidies could begin to flow to LTD while rural Minnesota communities and other service providers would be choked off from other sources of financial support.
To protect the public interest, the Department requests suspension of LTD’s expanded ETC designation until this matter is permanently resolved. The Department and other intervenors, through the submission of affidavits from engineering experts, have met their threshold obligation for the purposes of suspension – demonstrating that it is more likely than not LTD cannot meet its expanded ETC obligations. To be clear, suspension does nothing to change the underlying burden of proof on whether to permanently revoke LTD’s expanded ETC designation. Suspension is simply necessary to prevent harm to the public interest until this case is permanently resolved.

Minnesota Telecom Alliance and Minnesota Rural Electric Association have also responded, opposing LTD Broadband’s request…

This letter is submitted by the Minnesota Telecom Alliance (“MTA”) and Minnesota Rural Electric Association (“MREA”) in opposition to the November 13, 2023 request of LTD Broadband, LLC (“LTD”) for further delay based on the circulation of a Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) draft order concerning LTD’s Application for Review.
Completely contrary to LTD’s position, the circulation of that draft order makes it all the more essential that the Commission act immediately on the Motion to Suspend because failing to do so would:
1. Potentially moot any later Commission order regarding whether LTD can meet its Eligible Telecommunications Carrier (“ETC”) obligations to 102,000 locations in Minnesota; and
2. Leave entirely up to the FCC the critical public interest question of whether Minnesotans in these locations will be able to actually obtain high speed Broadband service (which has been LTD’s goal from the start of this proceeding). These totally unacceptable results would occur because:
1. The Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (“BEAD”) program prohibits BEAD funding for any locations for which the FCC has issued a Public Notice that Rural Digital Opportunity Fund (“RDOF”) support is ready-to-authorize or is authorized. 1 (Minnesota’s Border to Border (“BTB”) Program has adopted this same restriction that prohibits BTB funding to areas that have an enforceable commitment.);2 and
2. Such a Public Notice could be issued very shortly after an FCC Order, sooner than time estimates for actual funding, and long before the Commission could react.
These facts make it clear that, if the Commission waited for the issuance of the FCC Order, it would be impossible for the Commission to issue an order before the announcement of the Public Notice that would preclude BEAD funding for the 102,000 locations that would, in effect, prevent the Commission order from protecting the public interest.
Further, all of the evidence before the Commission fully justifies suspension, including:
1. Engineering analysis provided by Petitioners showing that LTD could not install fiber needed to provide Broadband service to these 102,000 Minnesota locations even if LTD had all of the $311 million RDOF support for those locations; and
2. Engineering analysis provided by the Department that also shows that LTD cannot provide Broadband service to those locations.
These facts show there would be no benefit to the public from enabling LTD to obtain RDOF support, only an illusion of a benefit. This would come at the cost of preventing qualified providers, that could otherwise obtain and use BEAD funding and State BTB Broadband funding, from providing high-speed Broadband service in LTD’s ETC area.
It is the Commission’s responsibility, not the FCC’s, to protect the public interest in Minnesota, and the Commission has more than an ample record to suspend LTD’s ETC expanded designation. Therefore, there is no merit to LTD’s argument that the Commission should wait for a decision by the FCC. To the contrary, federal law contemplates State commissions acting through ETC designations before the FCC acts to determine a provider’s eligibility for RDOF funding.
Under Minnesota law, public interest considerations take priority over private interests. Here, the severe risk to residents in the 102,000 locations within LTD’s ETC area, combined with the factual information now available to the Commission, fully justify suspending LTD’s expanded ETC designation unless and until LTD can provide evidence showing it can be reasonably expected to perform its ETC obligations.

LTD Broadband responds countering the responses above…

LTD Broadband, LLC (“LTD”), by counsel, hereby replies to the letters filed earlier today on behalf of the Minnesota Department of Commerce (“DOC”) and the Minnesota Telecom Alliance (“MTA”) and Minnesota Rural Electric Association (“MREA”), each opposing LTD’s request that Decision Item 1 be deleted from the Public Utilities Commission’s November 16, 2023 Agenda Meeting. As detailed herein, the DOC and MTA/MREA once again
have failed to articulate any public interest basis for the Commission to pursue a contested proceeding in this matter at this time.
Both the DOC and MTA/MREA pile speculation upon conjecture to reach a wholly unsupported conclusion that immediate action is required. Broken down to its essence, the argument is that if the FCC grants LTD’s Application for Review at any point, then the Commission might have limited time to conduct its own proceedings before the FCC’s staff might possibly announce that LTD may, upon submission of additional showings, become eligible for Rural Digital Opportunity Fund (“RDOF”) support.

That is a multitude of future conditional events that would be required before the asserted harm that is alleged could occur, i.e., an award of RDOF funding that conceivably blocks other funding for the locations for which LTD was a provisional winner of support.
In the absence of even one of these many dominoes being tipped, there is no credible basis to engage in further administrative proceedings, which would not only impose significant time, financial and other resource burdens upon all parties and the Commission but would also be prejudicial to LTD. Indeed, the lead arguments raised by DOC and MTA/MREA are contradictory. In its letter, DOC expresses concern that there’s “no guarantee that the [FCC] will issue a timely decision regarding LTD’s administrative appeal.” But for so long as that remains the case, the status quo is maintained, no RDOF support can be authorized to LTD, all locations remain eligible for other broadband support programs (including BEAD) to the extent they are
not now otherwise served, and LTD’s ETC designation covering Minnesota RDOF locations remains effectively dormant.
Taking the opposite view, MTA/MREA assert that “the circulation of that draft order makes it all the more essential that the Commission act immediately” based on the specious contention that FCC action could “[p]otentially moot any later Commission order” governing LTD’s ETC status in Minnesota. MTA/MREA make no legal showing why any FCC action could preempt Commission action in this case, let alone a factual showing that “it would be
impossible” for the Commission to act before LTD received RDOF funds.
In short, both the DOC’s and MTA/MREA’s arguments are based not only on hypothesized events (FCC action or lack thereof), but also on a series of other potential followon events to which both simply presume the Commission would be unable to respond in timely fashion should the first of their speculative occurrences come to fruition. There is no evidence to support such presumptions. Moreover, neither the DOC nor MTA/MREA has made any fact based showing that current circumstances have any negative impact on the public interest. Accordingly, it makes far more sense to defer any Commission engagement on this matter pending further FCC action, which now seems likely to occur and may by itself preclude any need for further proceedings before the Commission.

Le Sueur County responded explaining how the issue has had an impact on them…

I was made aware the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) will be discussing on November 16, the revocation of expanded Eligible Telecommunications Carrier (ETC) designation of LTD Broadband (LTD) and denying LTDs funding certification for 2023.

I want to thank you for your time and attention to this very important matter. As you know, the issue of the ETC designation for LTD is a complex one, that is intertwined with funding ramifications that directly link to future fiber access to citizens in our county and throughout Minnesota.

I am not a subject matter expert on whether LTD qualifies and should carry ETC designation, but I can share with you the impact LTD and its RDOF winning bid has had on our county and its citizens, which I hope you take into consideration as you decide what direction to take on ETC designation and funding certification.

As a rural county with limited fiber infrastructure, many of our citizens have had to rely on wireless internet service providers for our internet, with LTD being a key provider of those services. While we were, and are grateful, for LTD providing wireless services to our area while we wait for fiber infrastructure, unfortunately over the past several years we have heard many complaints about speed and reliability of the wireless service and the quality of customer service.

Furthermore, our county experienced a Border-to-Border grant being denied in 2021 from the State of Minnesota based on RDOF census tracts, a decision that has had a chilling effect on providers looking to work in these areas. Further, we continue to be concerned about how winning RDOF census tracts are counted in BEAD allocations, thus shorting our county of much needed federal resources to install fiber networks.

On a separate, but related front, we recently met with LTD representatives to discuss with them their FCC speed reporting, which showed many locations eligible for 250/250 service. During that meeting, we were happy to hear about claimed improvements in their wireless service technology, and some preliminary work on fiber projects. However, unfortunately, we did not hear about any significant plans to broadly install fiber networks in the county within RDOF census tracts.

As a follow-up to that meeting with LTD, the county reached out to several citizens and current LTD customers and encouraged them to contact LTD to enhance their speeds if they wished to improve their service. Based on the responses back from those citizens, none were able to improve their speeds, and in fact were told improved service was not available. Based on this knowledge, the county worked and continues to work on challenging speed reporting to the FCC.

When considering LTDs ETC designation, I would recommend you question and closely examine LTDs
capabilities and plans to install fiber networks to homes and businesses, especially within RDOF census tracts.

For your reference, we believe LTD has been awarded 415 census tracts in our County. The entire RDOF award for LTD amounts to around $1 million in our County, an average of $2,410 per census tract. Based on our past work, $1 million is far short of the public subsidy needed to install fiber networks in these census tracts.

Thanks again for your time and attention to this issue and examining if LTD has the capability of installing fiber networks and should carry ETC designation.

I would also like to call to your attention the following correspondence that we sent to the Governor’s
Office in September that further outlines the issues that providers who overreport service create for
communities and local providers.

The Attorney General’s Office also responded…

The Office of the Minnesota Attorney General—Residential Utilities Division (“OAG”) respectfully submits this letter in opposition to LTD Broadband LLC’s (“LTD”) request that the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (“Commission”) delay consideration of Petitioners’ Motion to Suspend (“Motion”) because the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) placed LTD’s Application for Review on its Items on Circulation. For many months, LTD’s defense to the Motion has leaned heavily on the fact that the FCC had not taken further action on LTD’s Application for Review. LTD’s initial comments observed “[t]here has been no change in the circumstances of LTD’s Application for Review.”1 LTD argued the Motion was premature and based upon “a skewed and inconsistent account of the status of proceedings before the FCC concerning LTD’s long-form application.”2 The thrust of LTD’s comments was that there would be plenty of time to engage the Commission’s attention if and when FCC returned its attention to LTD.

In response to these arguments from LTD, the Minnesota Telecom Alliance (“MTA”), the Minnesota Rural Electric Association (“MREA”), the Department of Commerce, OAG, and several additional commentors have continued to raise concerns that (1) the FCC could move on LTD, and if FCC acted (2) Minnesotans will be harmed in the absence of Commission action, because LTD cannot deliver the services it pledges to provide.3 Rather than engage the substance
of these concerns, LTD doubled-down in its Reply Comments on the argument that the Motion was premature. LTD complained that there was “no evidence that we have seen from the Commission that [FCC] action will take place anytime soon.”4

It was, then, perplexing to see LTD file a letter yesterday citing an FCC action—the absence of which was foundational LTD’s ripeness argument opposing the Motion—as a basis to once again scuttle consideration of MTA and MREA’s Motion.

The fact of the matter is that LTD’s appearance on FCC’s Items on Circulation list moves LTD a step closer to receiving funding it is ill prepared to deploy. FCC’s action moves Minnesotans a step closer to having once-in-a-generation rural broadband funding go to a carrier
that is unequal to the task of building out the vital infrastructure that the people of greater Minnesota need. It moves rural communities a step further away from alternate sources of funding (e.g., federal Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (“BEAD”) program and the State Border to Border (“BTB”) funding), which could otherwise meet some of the regional need for broadband
infrastructure funding.

There is urgent need for Commission action to ensure that scarce Universal Service Fund dollars are not squandered. The events cited by LTD provide no reasonable basis to delay consideration of this matter. If anything, they hasten the need for the Commission’s attention. The OAG respectfully requests the Commission deny LTD’s request to pull this matter from the November 16, 2023 agenda meeting.

LTD Broadband asks MN PUC to remove item from Nov 16 meeting

Posted on by
Reply

The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission is meeting on Thursday to discuss the issues of ETC designation for LTD Broadband. LTD has asked MN PUC to remove the first item from their agenda…

LTD Broadband, LLC (“LTD”), by counsel, hereby respectfully requests deletion of Decision Item 1 from the Public Utilities Commission’s November 16, 2023 Agenda Meeting in light of recent developments at the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”).

On November 9, 2023, the FCC posted on its web site a list of Items on Circulation. That list indicates that, on that date, a written item concerning LTD’s Application for Review (“AFR”) was circulated among the FCC’s five commissioners for a vote. As the FCC’s web page states, the list of Items on Circulation “provides a compilation of the Commission level items that have been circulated and are pending action by the full Commission. This list is updated on a weekly basis.”1 Although the list does not establish when the FCC will act or the action it will take, it indicates that a draft order has been sent to the FCC commissioners for consideration and vote. Once that occurs, the written order would be adopted and released to the public.

The circulation of an item addressing LTD’s AFR justifies deletion of Decision Item 1 from the November 16 agenda. If the FCC dismisses or denies the AFR, LTD will review that decision and decide whether to seek further review or to cease prosecuting its RDOF long-form application. If it takes the latter step, then LTD would relinquish its ETC designation with respect to its RDOF locations and there will be no need for the Commission, other parties and LTD to expend time and resources on an unnecessary hearing. If the FCC grants LTD’s AFR and directs its staff to process LTD’s RDOF long-form application, then it may be appropriate at that time for the Commission to consider Decision Item 1. It is also possible that the FCC could grant the AFR in part or take some other action. But regardless of the action the FCC takes on the AFR, a written decision of any kind will inform whether the Commission may wish to undertake further proceedings, as well as the potential scope and purpose of any such proceedings.

Accordingly, in light of the new development at the FCC and upcoming action that could make these proceedings either unnecessary or more limited in scope, LTD respectfully requests that Decision Item 1 be deleted from the November 16 Agenda Meeting and that consideration of that item be deferred until after the FCC has acted on the AFR.

EVENT Nov 16: MN PUC agenda item related to ETC designation for LTD Broadband

Posted on by
Reply

The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (PUC) will be discussing the ETC designation for LTD Broadband on November 16. They recently posted staff briefing papers, which include detailed background of the issue and outline the possible decision options…

DECISION OPTIONS

Should the Commission lift the January 18, 2023, stay of this proceeding issued by the ALJ?
1. Continue the stay imposed pursuant to the Administrative Law Judge’s January 18,
2023, Third Prehearing Order. (LTD)
OR
2. Lift the stay imposed pursuant to the Administrative Law Judge’s January 18, 2023, Third
Prehearing Order (Petitioners, Department, and OAG).
AND
a. Refer the matter back to the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) with the
request that the matter be restarted following the procedure outlined in the
Commission’s August 16, 2022, Notice and Order for Hearing (Department).
OR
b. Consider the Petitioner’s motion to suspend LTD’s RDOF ETC designation
previously granted by the Commission.
[If the Commission selects decision option 2a or 2b, the Commission should consider decision
options #3, #4, or #5 based on relevance.]
Should the Commission grant the MREA and MTA’s (Petitioner’s) motion to suspend LTD’s
RDOF ETC designation previously granted by the Commission?
3. Deny the Petitioner’s motion to suspend LTD’s RDOF ETC designation previously granted
by the Commission (LTD).
OR
4. Grant the Petitioner’s motion to suspend LTD’s RDOF ETC designation previously
granted by the Commission (Petitioners, Department, and OAG).
OR
5. Grant the Petitioner’s motion to suspend LTD’s RDOF ETC designation previously
granted by the Commission and Refer the matter back to the Office of Administrative
Page| 1 9
Staff Briefing Papers for Docket No. P-558, P-6995/M-22-221; P-6995/M-21-133 **

Hearings (OAH) with the request that the matter be restarted following the procedure
outlined in the Commission’s August 16, 2022, Notice and Order for Hearing
(Department).
[If the Commission selects decision option 2a or 2b, the Commission should consider decision
options #6, or #7.]
Should the Commission require LTD to provide contact information for the Commission’s
Consumer Affairs Office in customer bill messages?
6. Require LTD to provide notification to its Minnesota customers that they may contact
the Consumer Affairs Office (CAO) with questions or concerns, or to provide public
comment. Require LTD to file a proposed customer notice in this docket within 30 days
of the Commission’s order, and delegate authority to the Executive Secretary to approve
the content, format, and timing of the customer notice (Department).
OR
7. Do not require LTD to provide notification to its Minnesota customers

EVENT Nov 16: LTD Broadband on agenda for MN Public Utilities Meeting

Posted on by
Reply

The MN PUC’s agenda for their November 16 (10am) meeting starts with LTD Broadband…

Items on the attached agenda will be heard at the Commission’s regularly scheduled meeting.
DATE: Thursday, November 16, 2023
TIME: 10:00am
LOCATION: Large Hearing Room, 121 7th Pl E, Suite 350, St. Paul, MN 55101
AND Online via WebEx, See attached instructions …

Details 2022-105 ** P558,6995/M-22-221; LTD Broadband;
P6995/M-21-133 Minnesota Rural Electric Association; Minnesota Telecom Alliance
In the Matter of a Petition to Initiate a Proceeding to Revoke the Expanded Eligible Telecommunications Carrier (“ETC”) Designation of LTD Broadband, LLC (“LTD”) and Deny LTD’s Funding Certification for 2023.
1. Should the Commission lift the January 18, 2023, stay of this proceeding issued by the ALJ?
2. Should the Commission grant the MREA and MTA’s (Petitioners’) motion to suspend LTD’s Rural Digital Opportunity Fund ETC designation previously granted by the Commission? (PUC: Fournier, McShane)

It’s hybrid meeting and the public are welcome to join in person or online.

MN PUC meeting on LTD Broadband certification for CAFII: video and notes

Posted on by
Reply

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

  1. 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

  1. 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?

  1. 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: Continue reading →

LTD Broadband’s ETC designation no longer on MN PUC meeting agenda for Sep 21

Posted on by
Reply

According to the MN PUC latest agenda for the Sep 21 meeting, LTD Broadband’s ETC designation has been removed from the agenda. But they will still be looking at Local Exchange Carriers; Eligible Telecommunications Carrier. Here’s the full agenda.

  1. INTRODUCTION DECISION ITEMS 1. Details 2022-105
    PULLED
    ** P558,6995/M-22-221; LTD Broadband;
    P6995/M-21-133 Minnesota Rural Electric Association; Minnesota Telecom Alliance
    In the Matter of a Petition to Initiate a Proceeding to Revoke the Expanded Eligible Telecommunications Carrier (“ETC”) Designation of LTD Broadband, LLC (“LTD”) and Deny LTD’s Funding Certification for 2023.
    1. Should the Commission lift the January 18, 2023, stay of this proceeding issued by the ALJ?
    2. Should the Commission grant the MREA and MTA’s (Petitioners’) motion to suspend LTD’s RDOF ETC designation previously granted by the Commission? (PUC: Fournier, McShane)
  2. Details 2021-061
    ** E002/M-20-711 Xcel Energy
    In the Matter of Xcel Energy’s Petition for Approval of a Multi-Dwelling Unit Electric Vehicle Pilot Program.
    Should the Commission approve the expanded Multi-Dwelling Unit EV Service Pilot budget set forth in Xcel Energy’s August 18, 2023, Letter? (PUC: Terwilliger) 3. Details 2023-144 ** E002/M-22-403 Xcel Energy In the Matter of Xcel Energy’s 2022 Solar Portfolio. Should the Commission approve the Sherco Solar 3 Project and Apple River Solar Power Purchase Agreement? (PUC: Stalpes, Terwilliger

The following item will not be heard before 10:00am.

  1. 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

 

Update on MN PUC and LTD Broadband: customer to be informed of opportunity for comment

Posted on by
Reply

The MN PUC (Public Utilities Commission) is holding a meeting on September 21 to further discuss looking at revoking the Eligible Telecommunications Carrier designation of LTD Broadband. S, I’m sure we’ll know more after it. (If this story is new to you, you can learn more.) In the meantime, the Office of the Attorney General has made a recommendation…

In its August 11 comments, the Minnesota Department of Commerce articulated three recommendations for Commission consideration. First, the Department recommended that the Commission lift the stay imposed by the Administrative Law Judge to ensure timely resolution of this matter.1 Second, relying on the analysis of its retained engineering expert, the Department recommended that the Commission suspend LTD Broadband’s expanded ETC designation until the issue is permanently resolved through the contested case.2 Third, the Department recommended that the Commission require LTD to include bill messages advising customers that they may contact CAO with complaints.3 Because this third recommendation is not reflected in the filed decision options, the Department proposes the following additional decision option: 6. Require LTD to provide notification to its Minnesota customers that they may contact the Consumer Affairs Office (CAO) with questions or concerns, or to provide public comment. Delegate authority to the Executive Secretary to approve the content, format, and timing of the customer notice.

MN PUC briefing papers a petition to revoke ETC designation of LTD Broadband (prep for Sep 21)

Posted on by
Reply

The MN PUC (Public Utilities Commission) is holding a meeting on September 21 “In the Matter of a Petition to Initiate a Proceeding to Revoke the Expanded Eligible Telecommunications Carrier (“ETC”) Designation of LTD Broadband, LLC (“LTD”) and Deny LTD’s Funding Certification for 2023.” (The public is welcome; the meeting is hybrid.) They will take on two issues:

  1. Should the Commission lift the January 18, 2023, stay of this proceeding issued by the ALJ?
  2. Should the Commission grant the MREA and MTA’s (Petitioner’s) motion to suspend LTD’s RDOF ETC designation previously granted by the Commission?

They have just filed the briefing papers (21 pages) for that meeting. The papers outline and summarize all of the remarks and comments that have been made about the issues up until now. Rather than copy and page everything, I will simply share the issues and the staff notes on each.

Should the Commission lift the January 18, 2023, stay of this proceeding issued by the ALJ?

Staff notes that an RDOF allocation will be considered to have an enforceable commitment for qualifying broadband only after the Federal Communications Commission has announced in a Public Notice that RDOF support for that location is ready-to-authorize or is authorized. 25 As part of the FCC’s August 10, 2022, Notice discussed in the Background section above, the FCC denied LTD’s long-form application placing LTD in default for all their winning bids. LTD is not either ready-to-authorize nor is authorized to receive RDOF funding consistent with the NTIA Notice. As such, no enforceable commitment currently exists in those 102,055 locations LTD originally won in the RDOF auction in early 2021, and those locations are eligible for other grant programs, including the NTIA’s BEAD program funding mentioned by ILSR in their August 11, 2023, comments.

Should the Commission grant the MREA and MTA’s (Petitioner’s) motion to suspend LTD’s RDOF ETC designation previously granted by the Commission?
Public comments are summarized in Attachment A to this document. All four commentors opined that LTD should not maintain its RDOF ETC designation.

And the Staff Analysis

If the Commission determines that this matter should be decided with a conclusion, and the expenditure of resources devoted to reaching this conclusion is deemed prudent, the Commission may consider lifting the ALJ’s stay and move this matter forward. There are two procedures available to the Commission that may be applied as a combination.

First, there is lifting the ALJ’s stay of this matter and granting the Petitioner’s motion to suspend. Staff has some reservations with suspending LTD’s ETC designation. The motion would appear to shift the burden of proof from the Petitioners to show that LTD’s ETC designation should be revoked, to LTD having to redemonstrate that it is fit for ETC designation in the Minnesota RDOF census blocks. This concern is balanced against the Commission preserving its role to determine the fitness of the carrier for ETC designation regardless of whether the FCC ever acts on LTD’s appeal.

As part of that authority, and to ensure the preservation of that authority throughout this process, the Commission may consider suspending LTD’s RDOF ETC designation, which was granted in the Commission’s June 3, 2021, Order pending the outcome of this proceeding.38 This will allow the Commission to bring about a smoother final resolution regardless of whether the FCC acts on LTD’s appeal.

However, if the FCC were to grant LTD’s appeal during the pendency of this proceeding, The ALJ reasoned the following:

In addition, if the FCC does change course, it will be based on an analysis that will be similar to what the Commission will face — is LTD capable of fulfilling its technical, managerial, and financial obligations to fulfill obligations under the RDOF program? While the Commission’s interests are somewhat different from the FCC’s, the determination of the FCC, an independent federal agency that has a fiduciary interest in seeing the RDOF funds are properly dispersed, is relevant to issues to be addressed in this proceeding. In addition, there will be a window, at least six weeks, for the parties in this proceeding to reconvene to decide next steps if the FCC does reverse course.

Second, there is lifting the ALJ’s stay of this matter, and referring the matter back to the ALJ to formally develop the record as the Commission requested prior to the FCC’s denial of LTD’s Long-Form application. Staff continues to believe a contested case will develop a complete record regarding whether LTD’s ETC designation should be revoked. A contested case proceeding will allow the parties to engage in discovery, present formal evidence, cross[1]examine witnesses, and develop a robust record fully exploring all the relevant issues consistent with the parties’ due process rights and applicable rules.

In their August 11, 2023, comments, the Department stated the following:

While the FCC’s denial of LTD’s long-form application has paused RDOF funds from flowing to LTD and lessened the initial urgency, the need for the proceeding continues and the Commission’s independent authority to designate and monitor ETCs remains. Given the passage of time, in order to effectuate its authority, the Commission should remove the stay and direct OAH to set a procedural schedule.40 Staff believes that the Department’s position has merit. This process is part of the Commission’s overall authority to designate and monitor eligible telecommunications carriers (ETCs), and the time may have come for the Commission to make a final determination of this matter.

Also, here are the decision options…

Should the Commission lift the January 18, 2023, stay of this proceeding issued by the ALJ?

  1. Continue the stay imposed pursuant to the Administrative Law Judge’s January 18, 2023, Third Prehearing Order. (LTD)

OR

  1. Lift the stay imposed pursuant to the Administrative Law Judge’s January 18, 2023, Third Prehearing Order (Petitioners, Department, and OAG).

AND

  1. Refer the matter back to the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) with the request that the matter be restarted following the procedure outlined in the Commission’s August 16, 2022, Notice and Order for Hearing (Department).

OR

  1. Consider the Petitioner’s motion to suspend LTD’s RDOF ETC designation previously granted by the Commission.

[If the Commission selects decision option 2a or 2b, the Commission should consider decision options #3, #4, or #5 based on relevance.]

Should the Commission grant the MREA and MTA’s (Petitioner’s) motion to suspend LTD’s RDOF ETC designation previously granted by the Commission?

  1. Deny the Petitioner’s motion to suspend LTD’s RDOF ETC designation previously granted by the Commission (LTD).

OR

  1. Grant the Petitioner’s motion to suspend LTD’s RDOF ETC designation previously granted by the Commission (Petitioners, Department, and OAG).

OR

  1. Grant the Petitioner’s motion to suspend LTD’s RDOF ETC designation previously granted by the Commission and Refer the matter back to the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) with the request that the matter be restarted following the procedure outlined in the Commission’s August 16, 2022, Notice and Order for Hearing (Department).

EVENT Sep 21: MN PUC meeting on LTD Broadband’s ETC designation

Posted on by
Reply

I have been following the saga of MN PUC looking at looking at (not a typo) revoking LTD Broadband’s ETC designation as requested by Minnesota Rural Electric Association and Minnesota Telecom Alliance. MinnPost recently wrote a helpful article on what’s been happening and why it matters. The very quick take is that LTD Broadband qualified to apply for a lot of federal funding. It kid terms, they had dibs on that funding, which meant no one else was able to apply. The federal opportunity fell through. LTD needed the ETC designation from the PUC to qualify for the funds, which they had. But in light of what happened MTA and MREA are asking the MN PUC to reconsider that designation.

On September 21, the MN PUC has this issue on their agenda (below). There are two items that follow this topic on the full agenda that aren’t broadband-related.

  1. 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)
  2. Details 2022-105
    ** P558,6995/M-22-221; P6995/M-21-133
    LTD Broadband; Minnesota Rural Electric Association; Minnesota Telecom Alliance
    In the Matter of a Petition to Initiate a Proceeding to Revoke the Expanded Eligible Telecommunications Carrier (“ETC”) Designation of LTD Broadband, LLC (“LTD”) and Deny LTD’s Funding Certification for 2023.
    1. Should the Commission lift the January 18, 2023, stay of this proceeding issued by the ALJ?
    2. Should the Commission grant the MREA and MTA’s (Petitioners’) motion to suspend LTD’s RDOF ETC designation previously granted by the Commission? (PUC: Fournier, McShane) 3. Details 2021-061 ** E002/M-20-711 Xcel Ener

The meeting is hybrid. The basic details are below. Visit the PUC announcement for more info, especially if you are interested in commenting.

NOTICE OF COMMISSION AGENDA MEETING – HYBRID FORMAT

Issued: September 8, 2023

Items on the attached agenda will be heard at the Commission’s regularly scheduled meeting.

DATE: Thursday, September 21, 2023 TIME: 10:00am

LOCATION: Large Hearing Room, 121 7th Pl E, Suite 350, St. Paul, MN 55101

AND Online via WebEx, See attached instructions

TO FIND OUT IF A MEETING IS CANCELED OR RESCHEDULED: Call (toll-free) 1-855-731-6208 or 651-201-2213 or visit mn.gov/puc

TO CHANGE YOUR MAILING PREFERENCES: E-mail docketing.puc@state.mn.us or call 651-201-2234

TO MAKE AN ACCOMODATION REQUEST: If reasonable accommodations are needed to enable you to fully participate in a Commission meeting such as sign language or large print materials, please call 651-296- 0406 or 1-800-657-3782 at least one week in advance of the meeting or email consumer.puc@state.mn.us for assistance.

EVENT Sep 21: Minnesota PUC meeting on LTD revocation

Posted on by
Reply

Now much more to report but the MN PUC Agenda meeting on the September 21: LTD ETC revocation; Xcel solar RFP; Annual ETC designations; Xcel EV program and federal funds.

I plan to attend.

Agenda MTG
Large Hearing Room, 121 7th Place E, Suite 350, St. Paul, MN 55101
Thu, Sep 21, 10am
Meeting Details
Agenda
Live Webcast
Viewing Instructions
* items above will be linked when available

MinnPost looks deep into Le Sueur’s broadband to see how policies matter

Posted on by
Reply

Turns out I wasn’t the only one driving a long distance for the Le Sueur County Fair over the weekend, Walker Orenstein from MinnPost was there too and he used the opportunity to take a deep dive into the broadband situation in Le Sueur County.

Le Sueur has been working on getting better broadband for many years. They have had some successes and some roadblocks. Walker outlines the current barriers. It demonstrates the importance of good maps and engaged communities.

There is opportunity…

As the federal government prepares to hand out an unprecedented flood of cash in Minnesota for improving access to broadband – including a whopping $652 million from the 2021 infrastructure bill – decisions on how to direct money to connect rural areas might be influenced by small conversations like these.

There are challenges…

The fair is one way to spread information to people in Le Sueur County, like what internet providers serve certain areas. It’s also a way for county officials to gather intel, especially as they prepare to contest the service claims of a controversial telecom company in hopes of getting a share of broadband money.

And now is a good time to look for challenges in your community…

As those programs get up and running – state officials are still devising a plan with the federal government for using the $652 million – it’s too soon to say which providers and what parts of the state could get money.

But maps of existing coverage published by the FCC are a critical starting point, and have sparked jockeying among telecom and broadband advocates for a slice of the pie. A look at those maps shows wide coverage by LTD Broadband in southern Minnesota, at download and upload speeds of 250 megabits per second (mbps).

That is fast enough to exceed state and federal standards, which considers 100/20 mbps service – which also can match or beat typical speeds in big urban areas – to be adequate.

Critics, however, argue the FCC maps aren’t accurate. And they hope to erase at least parts of LTD’s territory from the map. One survey of 120 LTD customers in Le Sueur County found average speeds of 9/1 mbps, according to a letter sent to state regulators by county officials.

(I have been following the situation with LTD Broadband and the MN PUC. Concerns for losing the opportunity to get better broadband in places like Le Sueur fuels the organizations that have filed the original issue with the MN PUC.)

Another issue is the definition of broadband…

The money from the infrastructure bill is a bit more complicated. It appears that federal regulators overseeing that particular pot of cash don’t count technology used by LTD Broadband. That means the LTD coverage area would still be considered “unserved,” opening the door for grants that would subsidize other providers.

LTD mainly offers what’s known as “fixed wireless,” which distributes a signal from a transmitter placed on a tall structure like a water tower. The feds prefer fiber cable to the home for the infrastructure program. Minnesota officials also believe fiber is faster and more reliable. The performance of fiber compared to fixed wireless has long been a source of debate in the industry.

Hauer [LTD Broadband SEO] told MinnPost he doesn’t think their existing services would block anyone from the cash earmarked for broadband in the infrastructure bill. And he hopes to actually compete for grants from the infrastructure money through building fiber.

What can the communities do? Find a local champion, such as Barbara Dröher Kline, and get people engaged…

For a county-wide challenge, Dröher Kline said she hopes to gather more specific information than from the county’s survey. And she needs enough people to make a case.

That means finding residents who have service from LTD Broadband and running speed tests. It also means working with people to sign up for internet and ask the company for speeds advertised to the FCC to see if the company can deliver them.

The fair booth had detailed maps showing what parts of the county have coverage from any broadband provider. Raffle winners got coffee mugs advertising the county’s broadband initiative. Free coffee was available to all. “But I interrogate them about who their broadband provider is,” Dröher Kline said.

MN PUC on the LTD Broadband case: Comments from Dep of Commerce, MTA & MREA and LTD Broadband

Posted on by
Reply

Last month, I started posting comments from the public on the MN Public Utility Commission’s situation with LTD Broadband and a request to look at revoking their ETC designation. Below I have excerpts from comments from:

  • MN Department of Commerce
  • Minnesota Telecom Alliance and Minnesota Rural Electric Association
  • LTD Broadband

In order of appearance in my in-box.

Comments from Department of Commerce…

The federal government is making a generational investment in broadband through the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund (“RDOF”) program and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. It is essential that these public subsidies only flow to providers capable of deploying broadband and delivering on their applicable Eligible Telecommunications Carrier (“ETC”) commitments. LTD Broadband, however, does not appear up to these tasks. Allowing LTD to remain in regulatory purgatory interferes with the efforts of local governments, nonprofits, and other providers to make investments with reasonable certainty and secure federal subsidies. This situation is untenable. To resolve these issues, the Department of Commerce continues to recommend that the Commission lift the stay, suspend LTD’s expanded ETC designation until final disposition of this matter, and direct LTD to notify its customers that they may contact the Consumer Affairs Office with any questions or concerns.

They go on to explain their reasoning. Here’s their outline, which is filled in on the original document…

  1. LTD’S ARGUMENTS AGAINST LIFTING THE STAY LACK MERIT
    1. The Commission Should Exercise Its Judgment and Expertise to Lift the Stay.
    2. LTD Attempts to Reduce the Commission to a Rubberstamp
  2. THE COMMISSION SHOULD SUSPEND LTD’S EXPANDED DESIGNATION.

And the conclusion…

For these reasons, and those discussed in its initial comments, the Department continues to recommend that the Commission lift the stay of this proceeding, suspend LTD’s expanded ETC designation for the pendency of the proceeding, and require LTD to include bill messages advising customers that they may contact CAO with complaints.

Comments from Minnesota Telecom Alliance and Minnesota Rural Electric Association…

The Minnesota Telecom Alliance (“MTA”) and Minnesota Rural Electric Association (“MREA”) (“Petitioners”) hereby respectfully submit these Reply Comments as provided in the Commission’s July 21, 2023, Notice of Comment Period in this matter (the “Current Proceeding”). Petitioners: (1) support the Comments of the Department of Commerce (“Department”),1 the Office of Attorney General (“OAG”),2 the Institute for Local Self Reliance (“ILSR”),3 LeSueur County,4 Minnesota Farmers Union (“MFU”), 5 Martha Milburn and Brad Gustafson; and (2) dispute the Comments of LTD Broadband, LLC (“LTD”).6

They’ve added a handy summary of their points:

  • The Commission has the legal authority and responsibility to suspend LTD’s Expanded ETC Designation (“ETC Designation”) based on facts presented by Petitioners, the Department and others showing LTD is unable to perform its ETC obligation to provide the supported broadband services throughout its Minnesota ETC area. 7
  • The status quo (under which LTD retains its ETC Designation) also poses the risk of immediate and irreparable harm to the public interest by denying access to other public broadband funding for approximately 165,000 Minnesota residents in LTD’s ETC area.
  • These facts and substantial risk to the public interest support suspending LTD’s ETC Designation, as Petitioners, the Department, the OAG, ILSR, and all commenters recommend.

And here’s the outline of their argument, which is filled in for the full comments:

  1. LTD’S ARGUMENT THAT THE COMMISSION SHOULD DEFER TO THE FCC IGNORES THE COMMISSION’S INDEPENDENT AUTHORITY AND RESPONSIBILITY TO ENSURE LTD MEETS ITS ETC OBLIGATIONS.
  2. FACTS PROVIDED BY PETITIONERS AND THE DEPARTMENT SHOW THAT LTD CANNOT MEET THE BASIC ETC REQUIREMENT TO PROVIDE THE SUPPORTED BROADBAND SERVICES TO THE 102,005 LOCATIONS IN ITS ETC AREA.
  3. C. LTD HAS GROSSLY UNDERSTATED THE IMMEDIACY AND SEVERITY OF THE RISK THAT ITS APPLICATION FOR REVIEW POSES TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN MINNESOTA
    1. 1. Contrary to LTD’s claim that its application for review is merely preliminary, the application asserts a right to RDOF funding with minimal delay.
    2. 2. The Commission cannot effectively protect the public interest in BEAD and other broadband funding sources without suspending LTD’s ETC designation.
  4. D. LTD’S COMMENTS IGNORE THE RISK OF IRREPARABLE HARM TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST FROM ALLOWING LTD’S ETC DESIGNATION TO REMAIN IN EFFECT DURING THE REVOCATION PROCEEDING

And the conclusion…

For the reasons discussed above and in Petitioners’ Motion to Suspend, it is essential that the Commission suspend LTD’s ETC Designation with or without lifting the Stay Order to properly reflect the overwhelming evidence that LTD is unable to perform its ETC obligations and to fully protect the public interest from irreparable harm.

Comments from LTD Broadband, LLC…

LTD Broadband, LLC (“LTD”), by its counsel, hereby replies to the initial round of comments submitted in response to the “Notice of Comment Period” issued July 21, 2023 by the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (the “Commission”). While a number of parties have voiced support for removing the current stay and considering the Motion to Suspend that the Minnesota Telecom Alliance (“MTA”) and the Minnesota Rural Electric Association (“MREA”) filed in March, none has carried the burden of demonstrating why this relief should be granted and additional, likely time-consuming proceedings conducted. Accordingly, the Commission should decline to disturb the current stay and no additional proceedings should be initiated at this time.

I am abridging their comments but I think this gets to a major point…

The contention of these parties that LTD’s FCC application could suddenly spring to life and result in LTD obtaining immediate authorization for Rural Digital Opportunity Fund (“RDOF”) support, thereby barring others from seeking alternative funding for broadband deployment, has no basis in fact.4 Even if LTD were to obtain a favorable FCC decision concerning its pending Application for Review, the cascade of events that MTA, MREA and other commenters postulate, without support, could not occur quickly. In the event the FCC staff’s dismissal of LTD’s long-form application is overturned, the Commission would have ample opportunity to initiate its own proceedings, if it determined they were warranted, and to make these steps known to the FCC promptly. But that is not the only possibility – the FCC could authorize LTD for partial support and decline to authorize support in certain areas. LTD could decline support in areas that it now serves or are served by others that have expanded their networks. Full denial or full reversal of the FCC’s staff decision are not the only two outcomes, and the impact on BEAD and other funding programs cannot be reasonably predicted so long as the Application for Review remains pending. Thus, in the absence of further FCC action, further Commission proceedings would serve no purpose at all and would only squander the time and resources of all compelled to participate in them, as LTD has fully articulated in its Comments.5 The Commission therefore should maintain the status quo unless and until the FCC takes further steps to consider LTD’s RDOF application, something that may or may not ever occur.

Finally, it would be entirely prejudicial for the Commission to entertain the Motion to Suspend, which seeks to sideline LTD’s expanded ETC designation “pending (1) conclusion of this proceeding; or (2) a Commission Order removing the suspension based on a showing by LTD that it meets the requirements for expanded ETC designation or that suspension is contrary to the public interest.”6 The Commission should not, based on allegations to which LTD has not responded and for which no standards are established, suspend a designation that the Commission granted based on a full and complete record. The Department of Commerce argues that “the public interest would be greatly prejudiced by such an expedited proceeding” in reference to FCC reversal of the staff denial of the long-form application.7 But it totally ignores the extreme prejudice LTD would suffer if there were no proceedings at all on these “complex issues,”8 and the Commission simply decided to suspend LTD’s expanded ETC designation without articulating standards for suspension, without assigning the burden of proof, and without affording LTD an opportunity to participate – which is what MTA and MREA clearly imply is the objective of the Motion to Suspend in asserting that “completion of a contested case is unlikely before the first round of BEAD funding is awarded, even if a contested case is conducted expeditiously.”

MN PUC on the LTD Broadband case: map correction

Posted on by
Reply

This is a correction to submitted commented earlier this week: More comments to the MN PUC on the LTD Broadband case from Attorney General, ILSR and MTA & MREA

Apparently, there is a correction to the map that the Department of Commerce posted earlier…

Enclosed for filing, on behalf of the Minnesota Department of Commerce, please find errata to Department Exhibit E.1 Specifically, the errata correct page two of the exhibit that erroneously attributed some Rural Digital Opportunity Fund program locations to LTD Broadband. The enclosed map corrects this issue. The other map (page one of the exhibit) obtained from the Department of Employment and Economic Development is unchanged.

More comments to the MN PUC on the LTD Broadband case from LTD and MN Farmer’s Union

Posted on by
Reply

Last month, I started posting comments from the public on the MN Public Utility Commission’s case with LTD Broadband and a request to look at revoking their ETC designation. Last week, I added two more and over the weekend three more comments.

Today I have comments from:

  • LTD Broadband
  • Minnesota Farmers Union
  • Minnesota Telecom Alliance and Minnesota Rural Electric Association submit a number of nondisclosure forms.

LTD Broadband comments…

LTD Broadband, LLC (“LTD”), by its counsel, hereby responds to the “Notice of Comment Period” issued July 21, 2023 by the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (the “Commission”). The Commission seeks comment in response to ALJ LeFave’s grant of a Motion to Certify1 to the Commission on the maintenance of the current stay as well as the Motion to Suspend ETC Designation (the “Motion to Suspend”) jointly filed by the Minnesota Telecom Alliance (“MTA”) and the Minnesota Rural Electric Association (“MREA”) (together, the “Movants” or “MTA and MREA”).

The Movants are seeking to embroil the Commission in entirely unnecessary proceedings on the basis of speculation, inconsistent logic, and a fundamentally inaccurate characterization of the posture of LTD’s application for Rural Digital Opportunity Fund (“RDOF”) support before the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”). The Motion is simply an attempt to extinguish arbitrarily LTD’s current ETC status as a means of prejudicing LTD’s position in matters still pending before the FCC, including LTD’s pending Application for Review 3 seeking FCC reversal of a staff decision denying LTD’s RDOF long-form application.

They follow that up with 10 pages of explanation; here’s an outline of their arguments.

  1. The Stay Should Remain in Place.
    1. No Party Other Than LTD is Damaged by Maintaining the Status Quo.
    2. The Motion to Suspend is Based on a False Premise Regarding the Relief that the FCC May Grant in Ruling on LTD’s Application for Review.
    3. Further Proceedings at This Time Would Squander Both Public and Private Resources.
  2. The Motion to Suspend Should Be Held in Abeyance, or Simply Denied, Pending Final FCC Action as It Relies Heavily on Staff-Level Findings at the Preliminary Stage of a Federal Agency Proceeding That Is Not Yet Final.

An interesting part of their argument…

At a recent conference, Minnesota Office of Broadband Development Executive Bree Maki was quoted as saying that the allocated amount is “not going to be enough” to connect all Minnesotans to broadband.15 But the $311 million that LTD is seeking from the FCC would add a significant amount of broadband funding dollars on top of what NTIA has allocated, helping the state achieve its goal of universal broadband.

Minnesota Farmers Union comments…

On behalf of Minnesota Farmers Union (MFU), I urge the Commission to support the petitioner’s motion to suspend LTD’s Eligible Telecommunications Carrier (ETC) designation. I, and many of the members I represent, are concerned that LTD’s inability to fulfill its obligations as a broadband provider will further delay deployment of the broadband that rural communities need and deserve.
…
However, in speaking with members in Le Sueur County and others, I have become concerned that LTD will not only fail to provide broadband services to rural communities but will also further delay broadband deployment by experienced providers. In the Federal Communication Commission’s August 10th, 2022 rejection of LTD’s application for RDOF subsidies, the FCC recognized that support of risky, unproven, and unrealistic companies not only wastes public monies, but also stands in the way of experienced providers delivering the quality internet service.

Burying fiber and other projects that make use of right-of-way effect farms. LTD’s lack of communication with local governments is concerning and could lead to conflicts with and confusion among landowners. I appreciate your consideration.

Minnesota Telecom Alliance and Minnesota Rural Electric Association submit a number of nondisclosure forms.