Federal Communications Commission             DA 13-1113
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Connect America Fund
)
)
)
)
)
WC Docket No. 10-90
REPORT AND ORDER
Adopted:  May 16, 2013                Released:  May 16, 2013
By the Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau:
I. INTRODUCTION
1. In the USF/ICC Transformation Order, the Commission comprehensively reformed and 
modernized the universal service and intercarrier compensation systems to maintain voice service and 
extend broadband-capable infrastructure to millions of Americans.
1
  As part of the reform, the 
Commission adopted a framework for providing support to areas served by price cap carriers known as 
the Connect America Fund through “a combination of competitive bidding and a new forward-looking 
model of the cost of constructing modern multi-purpose networks.”
2
  In particular, the Commission will 
offer each price cap carrier monthly model-based support for a period of five years in exchange for a 
state-level commitment to serve specified areas that are not served by an unsubsidized competitor, and if 
that offer is not accepted, will determine support through a competitive process.   
2. In this Report and Order (Order), the Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau) adopts a 
framework for the challenge process that will be used to finalize the list of areas that will be eligible for 
Connect America Phase II model-based support and adopts the procedures for a price cap carrier to elect 
to make a state-level commitment to serve the eligible areas.
3
  We particularly encourage state public 
utility commissions and broadband mapping authorities to participate in the challenge process and 
provide any information they believe to be relevant to our consideration of which census blocks should be 
eligible for the offer of Phase II model-based support.
4
                                                          
1
See Connect America Fund et al., WC Docket No. 10-90 et al., Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking, 26 FCC 17663 (2011) (USF/ICC Transformation Order), pets. for review pending sub nom. In re: 
FCC 11-161, No. 11-9900 (10th Cir. filed Dec. 8, 2011).
2
USF/ICC Transformation Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 17725, para. 156. 
3
The decisions adopted in this Order regarding the process for determining who is an unsubsidized competitor will 
apply only to the development of census blocks eligible for model-based support in Phase II.  The decisions in this 
Order in no way prejudge how the presence of an unsubsidized competitor may be determined in other contexts, 
such as the Phase II post-state-level-election auction or implementation of the rule limiting support where there is 
100 percent overlap with an unsubsidized competitor.
4
See Reply of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, WC Docket No. 10-90, at 7 (filed Apr. 12, 2013) 
(Pennsylvania PUC Reply).  
Federal Communications Commission             DA 13-1113
2
II. BACKGROUND
3. In the USF/ICC Transformation Order, the Commission delegated to the Bureau the task 
of implementing various aspects of Connect America Phase II.  Among other things, the Commission 
directed the Bureau, after the cost model is adopted, to “publish a list of all eligible census blocks” 
(specifically, those census blocks in price cap territories below the extremely high-cost threshold but 
above the funding threshold) and provide an opportunity for parties to “challenge the determination of 
whether or not areas are unserved by an unsubsidized competitor.”
5
  The Bureau also must specify the 
procedures for carriers to exercise their election to accept or decline Phase II support in exchange for 
making a state-level commitment.
6
  The Bureau initially sought comment on these two issues in the Phase 
II Challenge Process Public Notice.
7
  It subsequently sought to further develop the record on specific 
standards to apply in the challenge process, including metrics for determining whether an unsubsidized 
competitor is providing voice and broadband that is reasonably comparable to offerings in urban areas, in 
the Phase II Service Obligations Public Notice.
8
  
III. DISCUSSION
A. Phase II Footprint Challenge Process
4. The Phase II footprint challenge process will allow interested parties to provide input on 
the preliminary list of what areas should be deemed unserved by an unsubsidized competitor, and 
therefore eligible for Phase II model-based support.  Section 54.5 of the Commission’s rules defines an 
unsubsidized competitor as “a facilities-based provider of residential terrestrial fixed voice and broadband 
service that does not receive high-cost support.”
9
In this order, we set forth the basic framework 
regarding the use of presumptions, evidentiary showing, and timing of the challenge process for census 
blocks where Phase II funding will be offered to price cap carriers.   
5. Consistent with the framework established in the USF/ICC Transformation Order, an 
unsubsidized competitor in areas where the price cap carrier will be offered model-based support must 
meet the speed criteria established by the Commission for fixed broadband service (i.e., a provider that 
offers 4 Mbps downstream/1 Mbps upstream service (4 Mbps/1 Mbps)), as well as non-speed broadband 
criteria (i.e., latency, capacity, and price) and provide voice service.
10
In order to conduct the challenge 
                                                          
5
USF/ICC Transformation Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 17701, 17729, paras. 103, 170.
6
Id. at 17729, paras. 170-71.  
7
Wireline Competition Bureau Seeks Comment on Procedures Relating to Areas Eligible for Funding and Election 
to Make a Statewide Commitment in Phase II of the Connect America Fund, WC Docket No. 10-90, Public Notice, 
27 FCC Rcd 15970, para. 3 (Wireline Comp. Bur. 2012) (Phase II Challenge Process Public Notice).
8
Wireline Competition Bureau Seeks Further Comment on Issues Regarding Service Obligations for Connect 
America Phase II and Determining Who Is an Unsubsidized Competitor, WC Docket No. 10-90, Public Notice, 28 
FCC Rcd 1517 (Wireline Comp. Bur. 2013) (Phase II Service Obligations Public Notice).
9
47 C.F.R. § 54.5.  Petitions to reconsider the definition of “unsubsidized competitor” are currently pending before 
the Commission.  See Petition for Reconsideration of NTCH, WC Docket No. 10-90 et al., at 13 (filed Dec. 29, 
2011); Petition for Reconsideration of ViaSat, WC Docket No. 10-90 et al., at 9-11 (filed Dec. 29, 2011); Petition 
for Reconsideration of the Wireless Internet Service Providers Association (WISPA), WC Docket No. 10-90 et al., 
at 4-8 (filed Dec. 29, 2011).  In this Order, we adopt processes and presumptions to implement the Commission’s 
existing definition.  This decision in no way prejudices any action the Commission may take on the pending 
petitions for reconsideration.  
10
See USF/ICC Transformation Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 17710, paras. 103-04.  In response to the Phase II Challenge 
Process Public Notice, several commenters argued that we should not move forward with the Phase II challenge 
process until we set performance and pricing metrics for unsubsidized competitors.  See Comments of the American 
Cable Association (ACA), WC Docket No. 10-90, at 6-7 (filed Feb. 19, 2013) (ACA Comments); Comments of the 
(continued...)
Federal Communications Commission             DA 13-1113
3
process efficiently, we will develop the initial list of eligible census blocks based on coverage shown on 
the National Broadband Map,
11
and the reporting of voice subscriptions on FCC Form 477, and then will 
conduct a challenge process that will provide an opportunity for parties to challenge that preliminary 
determination.
12
   
6. Broadband Service. Under the Commission’s rules, an unsubsidized competitor must 
offer fixed broadband with speeds of at least 4 Mbps/1 Mbps.  We will presume that the National 
Broadband Map is accurate with regard to the speed of services being offered by broadband providers, 
with that presumption subject to rebuttal. Because the National Broadband Map does not contain data 
specifically for the 4 Mbps/1 Mbps benchmark, we will use the National Broadband Map’s 3 Mbps
downstream and 768 kbps upstream (3 Mbps/768 kbps) advertised speed as a proxy for 4 Mbps/1 Mbps.  
After consideration of the record, we see no reason to depart, for purposes of Phase II implementation, 
from the 3 Mbps/768 kbps proxy generally recognized by Commission.
13
  Therefore, any terrestrial, fixed 
provider shown on the National Broadband Map as offering broadband with speeds of 3 Mbps/768 kbps 
will be presumed to provide broadband service meeting the speed requirement of 4 Mbps/1 Mbps.
14
7. While the National Broadband Map provides valuable information regarding the 
availability of broadband service meeting specified speed tiers, it does not address the other criteria that 
the Commission has indicated are relevant to determining whether an entity should be deemed an 
unsubsidized competitor.  There is no alternative suitable national-level source that we can rely upon to 
make this determination.  There is ample evidence in the record, however, that providers that meet the 
speed requirement generally meet our other performance criteria.
15
  For administrative ease, therefore, we 
(Continued from previous page)                                                           
United States Telecom Association (USTelecom), WC Docket No. 10-90, at 9-12 (filed Feb. 19, 2013) (USTelecom 
Comments); Reply of the Independent Telephone and Telecommunications Alliance, WC Docket No. 10-90, at 7 
(filed Mar. 4, 2013) (ITTA Reply).  The challenge process will not take place until after we address these issues in a 
future order.  This Order merely adopts presumptions and procedures to facilitate efficient review of challenges.  
11
Commenters support using the most recent version of the National Broadband Map at the time we conduct the 
challenge process.  See, e.g., Comments of WISPA, WC Docket No. 10-90, at 4 (filed Feb. 19, 2013) (WISPA
Comments).  We agree that we should use the most recent version of the map available shortly before we finalize the 
initial list of blocks eligible for funding.  We will determine what version of the National Broadband Map to use in a 
future order.  
12
Throughout this Order, “parties” is used generically to mean any person or entity.  
13
The Commission has previously recognized this proxy.  See USF/ICC Transformation Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 
17701, para. 103 n.168.  We are not persuaded by the arguments of the price cap carriers that we should shift the 
proxy to 6 Mbps/1.5 Mbps for Phase II implementation.  See USTelecom Comments at 11, ITTA Reply at 6.  Doing 
so would increase the likelihood of funding flowing to an incumbent in census blocks where an unsubsidized 
competitor is, in fact, providing service meeting the speed requirements established by the Commission – 4 Mbps/1 
Mbps – which is contrary to the overall framework for Phase II.  See, e.g. WISPA Comments at 3-4.  
14
We are not persuaded by CTIA’s argument that the Bureau has the delegated authority to define an unsubsidized 
competitor for the purposes of Phase II to include mobile providers.  See Comments of CTIA – The Wireless 
Association, WC Docket No. 10-90, at 8-9 (filed Mar. 28, 2013).  CTIA’s reliance on language in the USF/ICC 
Transformation Order that specific broadband requirements would be tailored to each of the new funding 
mechanisms is misplaced.  That language contains no grant of delegated authority to override the explicit reference 
to “fixed” in the definition of unsubsidized competitor codified in section 54.5 of the Commission’s rules. 
15
See, e.g., Letter from Steven F. Morris, National Cable Telecommunications Association (NCTA), to Marlene H. 
Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, WC Docket No. 10-90, at 2 (filed Apr. 5, 2013) (arguing 
that the Commission’s Measuring Broadband America (MBA) reports demonstrate that cable operators provide their 
customers with broadband services that far exceed the speed and latency standards that will be applied to Connect 
America funding recipients, smaller operators not participating in the MBA program typically utilize the same 
(continued...)
Federal Communications Commission             DA 13-1113
4
conclude that it is reasonable to presume that providers that provide broadband of the required speed also 
meet the non-speed broadband criteria, with that presumption subject to rebuttal in particular instances.    
8. It serves the public interest to presume existing providers that meet the speed criteria also 
meet the non-speed criteria for broadband service.
16
This presumption places price cap carriers in the 
position of contesting a preliminary decision to not provide funding to a particular census block, rather 
than requiring unsubsidized competitors to contest a decision to fund a census block.
17
  This is both 
equitable and efficient.  First, requiring price cap carriers to file a challenge likely will reduce the overall 
burden on respondents and the Commission while placing the burden on the party potentially receiving 
funds.
18
  Second, we conclude this presumption is generally accurate in the majority of cases.
19
  The 
(Continued from previous page)                                                           
technology as larger operators, and the prevalence of nationwide pricing by many cable operators ensures that prices 
in rural and urban areas are generally comparable); Comments of the American Cable Association, WC Docket No. 
10-90, at 7 (filed Mar. 28, 2013) (ACA March 28 Comments) (similar); Comments of AT&T, WC Docket No. 10-
90, at 5-6 (filed Mar. 28, 2013) (AT&T Comments) (does not object to use of a rebuttable presumption relying on 
SBI (National Broadband Map) data showing availability of 3 Mbps/768 kbps for cable broadband providers; “a 
cable operator offering 3/768 is almost always capable of offering 4/1 and satisfying the other service criteria”).   
16
We had initially sought comment on utilizing such a presumption only for cable providers.  See Phase II Service 
Obligations Public Notice, 28 FCC Rcd at 1519-20, para. 11.  A number of commenters argued a presumption 
would be reasonable for cable operators, but not for wireless Internet service providers (WISPs).  See, e.g, AT&T 
Comments at 6; Comments of USTelecom, WC Docket No. 10-90, at 5-7 (filed Mar. 28, 2013).  After consideration 
of the record, we now conclude that administrative efficiency warrants adopting the same rebuttable presumption for 
cable and WISP broadband service.  Requiring the price cap carrier, rather than a WISP, to initiate a challenge 
lessens burdens on WISPs, many of whom are small businesses.  See Comments of WISPA, WC Docket No. 10-90, 
at 2-5 (filed Mar. 28, 2013) (WISPA March 28 Comments). 
17
Other interested parties, including state and local government entities, may also file challenges that a particular 
provider shown as serving a census block on the National Broadband Map does not, in fact, meet the Commission’s 
requirements for an unsubsidized competitor.  It is likely, however, that the majority of challenges would come from 
price cap carriers.  Therefore, for simplicity, we shall use the term “price cap carrier” to encompass all parties that 
might file a challenge alleging that a particular block is not served by an unsubsidized competitor.  
18
Given that Phase II has a set budget, price cap carriers will not necessarily choose to challenge a preliminary 
decision not to fund a particular census block. If a block is challenged and becomes eligible for funding, other 
blocks will necessarily need to become ineligible in order to maintain the $1.8 billion budget.  If a price cap carrier 
were to challenge a large number of blocks, it is likely some of its own previously eligible blocks would no longer 
receive funding.  This should reduce the financial incentive to price cap carriers to challenge a large number of 
blocks.  Conversely, an unsubsidized competitor would likely have a strong incentive to challenge every census 
block in its territory, because a successful challenge eliminates the possibility of support flowing to a price cap 
carrier to overbuild the competitor’s broadband service in that census block.  In addition, to the extent a price cap 
carrier does not plan to accept Phase II funding, it is less likely to challenge the eligibility of particular census blocks 
for funding.  Putting the burden on unsubsidized competitors to challenge the eligibility of individual census blocks 
would place an unreasonable burden not only on those providers (many of which are small businesses), but also on 
the Bureau, which would be faced with the task of quickly processing those filings to avoid delaying Phase II 
implementation. There are 2,500 wireless Internet service providers alone, see WISPA March 28 Comments at 4, 
although the most recent version of the National Broadband Map (data as of June 2012) indicates that fewer than 
800 of them provide service meeting the 3 Mbps/768 kbps proxy that we adopt herein for Phase II challenges.  
Additional filings could be expected from cable providers.  While not all of these providers would file, even a 
fraction of these entities would still greatly tax the capacity of the Bureau to handle challenges, which could result in 
delays to the implementation of Phase II.
19
See supra n.15.  Windstream argues that we should presume a census block is not served by an unsubsidized 
competitor if there have been no requests for phone number porting to that census block in the last 18 months.  
Reply of Windstream, WC Docket 10-90, at 5 (filed Apr. 12, 2013).  We decline to adopt such a presumption, but 
will consider such evidence in the challenge process.  We do not have a uniform nationwide data set regarding 
(continued...)
Federal Communications Commission             DA 13-1113
5
preliminary classification of a block as served will serve to err on the side of not providing funding, while 
still giving the opportunity for the price cap carrier to demonstrate that a block should be funded.
9. Voice Service. Under the Commission’s rules, an entity must provide “residential 
terrestrial fixed voice and broadband service” in order to be deemed an unsubsidized competitor.  We 
conclude that the ability of the consumer to obtain voice service from a third party is not sufficient for 
that broadband provider to be deemed an unsubsidized competitor for purposes of Phase II 
implementation because that broadband provider would not be offering a voice service.  Such an 
interpretation would effectively read the requirement that the unsubsidized competitor be a “provider” of 
“voice” out of the Commission’s adopted definition, as all broadband connections offer the capability to 
receive an “over the top” voice over Internet protocol (VoIP) service from a third party.
20
  Therefore, we 
interpret the Commission’s definition as requiring the provider itself to provide voice service, in addition 
to broadband, in order to be designated an unsubsidized competitor.
21
  
10. We conclude, based on our FCC Form 477 data, that it would be unreasonable to 
presume that all broadband providers shown on the National Broadband Map are also providing voice 
service.
22
  We therefore will utilize both Form 477 data and the National Broadband Map when 
developing the initial list of blocks that will be eligible for funding.
23
  A provider will be presumed to be 
(Continued from previous page)                                                           
porting activity for all price cap carriers.  Moreover, while a lack of porting activity could be an indication of a lack 
of an unsubsidized competitor providing voice service, it may also be caused by consumers choosing to rely on 
mobile voice rather than the voice product offered by the unsubsidized competitor.  These reasons weigh against 
creating a presumption that the census block is unserved if there is a lack of porting activity.  However, we adopt 
Windstream’s alternative proposal to allow parties to submit evidence of lack of porting in the challenge process, as 
discussed below.
20
For recipients of funding under Phase II support, voice is the supported service.  Thus, they must offer voice 
service to consumers.  Therefore, to ensure parity between Phase II recipients and unsubsidized competitors, we also 
require an unsubsidized competitor to offer its own voice service.  Furthermore, we conclude that excluding 
competitors that do not themselves offer voice furthers the Commission’s overarching policy objective of ensuring 
that consumers have access both to voice and broadband services.  If technical troubles arise, for example,
consumers will know whom to contact to resolve the problem, rather than having to determine whether the problem 
stems from the over-the-top VoIP provider, or whether the issue is due to the underlying broadband connection. 
21
A broadband provider, such as a cable operator, that provides voice through an affiliated competitive local 
exchange company would be considered to be providing voice service.  Likewise, a broadband provider that 
provides voice using a managed voice solution obtained from a third party vendor would be considered to be 
providing voice service, so long as the broadband provider is the entity responsible for dealing with any customer 
problems, and it provides quality of service guarantees to end user customers.  In contrast, if a provider simply 
resells an over-the-top VoIP product without taking steps to establish quality of service for that product or making 
quality of service guarantees to end user customers, we would have concerns that such a provider is not providing 
voice service in a fashion contemplated by the Commission when it decided not to provide funding in areas served 
by unsubsidized competitors.
22
Our FCC Form 477 data indicate that not all broadband providers provide voice.  This is particularly true for 
WISPs: fewer than 30 percent of locations in the footprint of WISPs that report broadband availability according to 
June 2012 SBI data are in the footprint of WISPs who also report having voice subscribers in the latest round of 
FCC Form 477 data.  The comparable figure for cable is over 90 percent (i.e., most but not all cable providers report 
having voice subscribers).  These data describing which providers report voice subscribers are available at 
http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/statefilers0612.xls.
23
In its initial comments in response to the Model Design Public Notice, ACA had argued that we should 
supplement the National Broadband Map data with private sector data sources, specifically broadband data from 
Warren Media.  Comments of ACA, WC Docket No. 10-90 et al, at 23-24 (filed July 9, 2012); see Wireline 
Competition Bureau Seeks Comment on Model Design and Data Inputs for Phase II of the Connect America Fund, 
(continued...)
Federal Communications Commission             DA 13-1113
6
offering voice if it reports voice subscribers for the relevant state on its Form 477 filing, with that 
presumption subject to rebuttal.
24
  Supplementing the National Broadband Map with the FCC’s Form 477 
data will enable challenges to the initial list of census blocks eligible for funding to be more narrowly 
focused, thereby reducing burdens on both interested parties and Commission staff.
11.   Given the above presumptions and requirements, a provider will initially be presumed 
an unsubsidized competitor if (1) it is shown on the National Broadband Map as offering at least 3 
Mbps/768 kbps and (2) it is reporting voice subscriptions in the relevant state on Form 477.
25
  
12. Challenges and Evidentiary Showings.  Based on the above presumptions, the Bureau 
will publish a list of census blocks that are presumptively unserved by an unsubsidized competitor.
26
  The 
challenge process will focus on whether an area is served by an unsubsidized competitor.  Parties may 
challenge this list in two ways.
27
They may argue that the list is underinclusive – that a census block not 
included on the list is not served by an unsubsidized competitor and therefore should be on the list of 
blocks eligible for funding – or they may argue that the list is overinclusive – that a census block on the 
list is in fact served by an unsubsidized competitor and therefore should be excluded from the list.
13. We conclude that it is useful, given the number of census blocks potentially at issue in 
Phase II, to provide some advance guidance regarding what sorts of evidentiary showings will be 
persuasive, and to define standards so that parties, including small businesses, seeking to challenge or 
rebut the eligibility of a census block for funding can participate in this process without unnecessary 
(Continued from previous page)                                                           
WC Docket Nos. 10-90, 05-337, Public Notice, 27 FCC Rcd 6147 (Wireline Comp. Bur. 2012) (Model Design 
Public Notice).  ACA noted that a blend of National Broadband Map and Warren Media data would better portray 
coverage, especially for cable, than National Broadband Map data alone.  See id. at 24.  However, it has been nearly 
a year since ACA raised those arguments, and subsequently ACA suggested that the Bureau should rely on the 
National Broadband Map as the presumptive source of accurate information.  Reply of ACA, WC Docket No. 10-90, 
at 5-6 (filed Jan. 24, 2013).  We conclude that it is reasonable to rely upon that SBI data alone for our presumption 
regarding the presence of broadband service.  In any event, to the extent any individual cable company believes an 
area shown on the map as unserved is in fact served, it is free to bring that information to the Bureau’s attention in 
the challenge process. 
24
Because voice subscriptions are reported at the state level, the reporting of voice subscribers on Form 477 is not 
necessarily probative of whether a cable operator or WISP is actually providing voice service in a particular census 
block.  Absent a more granular source of data regarding voice availability, however, it is the best data source that we 
have at this time.  In developing the initial list of census blocks eligible for funding, we will look at whether any 
affiliated entity is reporting voice on FCC Form 477, and not just at whether the entity reporting broadband also 
reports voice on Form 477.
25
Providers are required to report their interconnected VoIP subscribers on Form 477. Interconnected VoIP is a 
service that enables real-time, two-way voice communications; requires a broadband connection from the user’s 
location; requires Internet-protocol compatible customer premises equipment; and permits users generally to receive 
calls that originate on the public switched telephone network and to terminate calls to the public switched telephone 
network. See 47 C.F.R. § 9.3.  A provider of interconnected VoIP must, among other things, comply with the 
Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, abide by the rules for the appropriate handling of customer 
proprietary network information, conform to the requirements for E911, and contribute to the universal service fund. 
26
The Bureau plans to make available information about the identity of the firm or firms that are presumptively 
deemed to be unsubsidized competitors by census block.
27
Any person or entity may file a challenge.  As noted above, both state public utility commissions and broadband 
mapping authorities may participate in the challenge process, and indeed we encourage them to do so.  
Federal Communications Commission             DA 13-1113
7
burden or expense.
28
  Our objective is to implement the Commission’s requirement that funding not flow 
to an area where there is an unsubsidized competitor, while at the same time ensuring that census blocks 
are not unnecessarily excluded from funding.    
14. To facilitate efficient and swift review of any challenges, parties must submit challenges 
in the format specified by the Bureau.
29
  Challengers will be required to provide the 15 digit Federal 
Information Processing Standard (FIPS) code and the state of the block in question; the name of the entity 
or entities putatively providing disqualifying service to that block according to the National Broadband 
Map, if applicable; the service criteria at issue;
30
the type of supporting evidence submitted as an 
attachment; and a certification under penalty of perjury that the challenger has engaged in due diligence to 
verify statements in the challenge and that such statements are accurate to the best knowledge of the 
filer.
31
  Furthermore, because the Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) converts all files to .pdf 
format, in addition to posting on ECFS, we will also require parties to submit a copy of any challenge in a 
native format to the Commission, either by e-mail to a designated Commission staff member or by 
delivery of storage media to a designated Commission staff member or the Commission Secretary.
32
15. We require parties submitting challenges to include specific evidence as an attachment to 
the challenge in support of their claims.  For each challenged block, parties must provide evidence 
specifying the reason for the challenge.
33
  A price cap carrier contending that a particular census block is 
unserved by an unsubsidized competitor need only show that any one of the criteria (speed, latency, 
capacity, price, or voice) is not met.
34
  Given the difficulty in proving a negative (i.e., that service meeting 
                                                          
28
Furthermore, requiring that challengers make a prima facie case that a block is subject to challenge reduces the 
risk that challengers, typically price cap carriers, might make baseless challenges, necessitating those providers, 
many of whom may be small businesses, to expend time and resources in opposing such challenges.
29
A form for filing challenges is included as the Appendix to this Order.  OMB approval will be sought for this 
form.  In addition to the information required regarding the challenge itself, we also will require certain identifying 
information to aid in processing challenges.  Such information will include the name of the filing entity; its FCC 
Registration Number (FRN) if applicable; the name, address, e-mail, and phone number of the person filling out the 
form; and the name, address, e-mail, and phone number of the person certifying the accuracy of the information 
provided.  If a party challenging the status of a block as unserved does not have an FRN due to not previously filing 
Form 477, it should provide other evidence to support its assertion that it provides voice in the relevant census 
block.
30
We are not persuaded by NCTA’s argument that, for areas served by cable, the challenge process should be 
limited to whether or not a particular block is served by a cable provider, and that the Bureau should not entertain 
challenges that a particular cable provider’s service is not meeting the performance criteria for speed, latency, or 
capacity.  See Comments of NCTA, WC Docket No. 10-90, at 5-6 (filed Mar. 28, 2013).  While we expect that cable 
service will often meet these performance criteria, we have no basis in the record before us to categorically conclude 
that cable service meets all such criteria in all instances.  Adopting a rebuttable presumption ensures that Phase II 
support is properly focused on areas that are not served by an unsubsidized competitor, consistent with the 
Commission’s overall framework for Phase II.  
31
If more than one entity is shown on the National Broadband Map as providing disqualifying service to a block, 
evidence must be presented that each provider fails to meet the requirements of an unsubsidized competitor.  A 
challenge that fails to do so will not be considered facially complete.
32
Details on making such submissions, including what formats will be accepted and what staff persons are 
designated to receive the files, will be provided in a public notice preceding the start of the challenge process.
33
If the same evidence is submitted in support of a challenge to multiple blocks, the challenge should briefly 
describe the type of evidence for each block, and attach only one copy of the supporting evidence for all of the 
blocks.
34
Parties may submit whatever evidence they believe to be probative, including, but not limited to, advertising 
materials, customer statements, engineering reports, affidavits of corporate officers, or billing information, that 
(continued...)
Federal Communications Commission             DA 13-1113
8
defined criteria does not exist in a particular block), we will consider a variety of evidence in determining
whether the price cap carrier has submitted sufficient evidence to warrant placing the challenge on public 
notice to solicit a response from interested parties.  For example, a price cap carrier’s evidence could 
consist of a signed certification that an employee of the company attempted to obtain service in a 
particular block, but was unable to do so, or that following a good faith search of a provider’s advertising 
materials, it was unable to find any offering matching the Commission’s Phase II service requirements.
35
  
We would also consider a signed certification from an officer of the price cap carrier under penalty of 
perjury, that it has not ported a telephone number within the last year (or a longer period of time) to the 
purported unsubsidized competitor, as relevant to whether that provider is providing voice service.
36
  
While we recognize that some customers may drop their landline service altogether, it would be unusual 
for a competitor offering voice service in the marketplace to have no voice customers at all.  
16. In those instances where a potential unsubsidized competitor files a challenge contending 
that it does serve the area, notwithstanding evidence establishing a presumption that the block is 
unserved, evidence that it actually is providing voice and broadband service to customers in the relevant 
area is likely to be the most persuasive evidence.  Thus, certifications relating to the number of customers, 
revenues received from customers, or customer lists (with customer identifying information redacted to 
preserve customer privacy) are likely to be more persuasive than propagation maps, advertisements of 
service offerings, or officer certifications, standing alone, that service is actually and immediately 
available – although we will consider each of the latter forms of evidence.
37
  We recognize that producing 
evidence demonstrating the existence of actual customers may be more difficult for potential competitors 
that have only recently begun to serve an area, but also seek some assurance that a provider is not merely 
advertising temporary or hypothetical service as a means of precluding Phase II funding for the price cap 
carrier.
38
  
17. Likewise, parties opposing challenges must provide, for each challenged census block 
(Continued from previous page)                                                           
shows that at least one of the required criteria is not being met.  When price cap carriers are challenging the status of 
a census block as served, we do not require the initial challenge to present evidence relating to all the criteria 
because information may not be readily available to the price cap carrier.  For instance, we recognize that the 
advertising materials of a potential unsubsidized competitor are unlikely to provide information about latency and 
also may not describe the provider’s practices regarding data usage.  In contrast, when asserting that a census block 
designated as unserved is, in fact, served by an unsubsidized competitor, the challenger must present evidence 
showing that all broadband performance metrics and pricing requirements are met, in addition to evidence that voice 
meeting the Commission’s requirements is provided.  
35
While such evidence may be probative, it is not determinative. 
36
Several parties contend that evidence relating to number porting is relevant to whether a firm is providing service 
in the area.  See, e.g., Comments of Windstream, WC Docket No. 10-90, at 8-9 (filed Jan. 9, 2013).  We note that a 
lack of porting to any of the census blocks purportedly served by an unsubsidized competitor is likely to be more 
persuasive than evidence of no porting to a single census block. We also note that the longer the time period in 
which no porting is reported, the more reasonable the inference that the purported competitor is not operating in the 
area.  
37
Any proprietary business information may be submitted subject to the protective order in this proceeding.
38
For example, we would be concerned if a broadband-only provider temporarily offered a voice service simply to 
preclude funding for price cap carriers in its area. While we may consider evidence from challengers that they have 
publicly announced intentions to serve an area by a date certain or within a reasonable period, we may give such 
evidence less weight if it appears such assertions are made strategically to prevent funding for a particular area, with 
no evidence of an intent to follow through on buildout commitments.  On the other hand, we would be more likely to 
consider such evidence in cases where the potential competitor itself had received government support to extend 
broadband to an unserved area, and buildout is substantially complete.  
Federal Communications Commission             DA 13-1113
9
they wish to contest, concrete and verifiable evidence supporting their claims that the challenge should 
not be granted.
39
  A corresponding evidentiary burden applies: respondents attempting to show that a 
block is served must show that all of the Commission’s criteria are met, while respondents attempting to 
show that a block is unserved need only show that any one of the criteria is not met.  We will consider an 
officer certification that a provider serves a particular census block with service meeting all of the 
Commission’s criteria as some evidence that service exists; however, such a certification would be more 
persuasive if supported by other evidence, such as advertising materials, certifications relating to the 
number of customers and/or revenues received from customers, or customer lists (with customer 
identifying information redacted to preserve customer privacy).
40
  We also require that an officer of the 
company making or opposing a challenge certify to the accuracy of the information provided, subject to 
the penalties for false statements imposed under 18 U.S.C. § 1001.  Challenges and responses that do not 
meet these criteria will not be considered by the Bureau.  
18. We conclude this process will provide the Bureau with an adequate evidentiary basis for 
making a determination that a particular census block is or is not served by an unsubsidized competitor, 
without unduly delaying implementation of Phase II.  We are not persuaded by USTelecom’s proposal 
that state mapping authorities contact all broadband providers to determine whether they meet each 
element of the Commission’s service obligation.
41
Simply put, that suggestion would potentially delay 
completion of the challenge process, and more importantly, would impose an unanticipated, unfunded 
burden on the state mapping authorities.
42
  
19. We will require parties to make a good faith effort to serve notice of challenges on 
interested parties.
43
  For a challenge that a listed census block is in fact served, the interested party is the 
price cap carrier in whose territory the block falls.  For a challenge that a block not on the list is unserved, 
the interested party is any and all entities that are shown on the National Broadband Map as providing 
service to that census block.  This notice will assist challenged parties who may not routinely monitor the 
Commission’s daily digest for public notices.
44
  However, we recognize that in some circumstances it 
may prove impossible or exceedingly difficult to identify and locate the particular person that should be 
given service for a provider; therefore, we stop short of requiring service of actual notice.  A challenger 
                                                          
39
Note that the response period is provided to respond to challenges; it is not an extension of the earlier challenge 
period.  The Bureau will only entertain responses that are made in direct reply to a challenge.
40
Any proprietary business information provided to rebut a challenge may be submitted subject to the protective 
order in this proceeding.
41
USTelecom Comments at 5-7.  Nor are we convinced by parties that suggest we should ask state regulators to 
make the determination of who is an unsubsidized competitor in a particular area.  See ITTA Reply at 7-8; 
Comments of the National Telecommunications Cooperative Association, the National Exchange Carrier 
Association, Inc., and the Western Telecommunications Alliance, WC Docket No. 10-90, at 9-10 (filed Feb. 19, 
2013) (arguing for an evidentiary hearing before a state regulatory commission).  The Commission delegated to the 
Bureau the task of implementing the challenge process, and we are not persuaded we should rely on another entity to 
complete the job delegated to the Bureau by the full Commission.
42
Reply of ACA, WC Docket No. 10-90, at 6-7 (filed Mar. 4, 2013) (ACA Reply); Reply of NCTA, WC Docket 
No. 10-90, at 2-3 (filed Mar. 4, 2013) (NCTA Reply).
43
USTelecom, ITTA, ACA, NCTA, and WISPA are in general agreement that good faith efforts to provide actual 
notice, coupled with Bureau publication of the list of blocks subject to challenge, should provide interested parties 
with sufficient notice of challenges.  Letter from Ryan Yates, Attorney Advisor, FCC, to Marlene H. Dortch, 
Secretary, FCC, WC Docket No. 10-90, at 2 (filed Apr. 16, 2013).   
44
Notice is only required for challenges; it is not required for responses.  The purpose of the notice is to give the 
party an opportunity to oppose a challenge that has been made.  As there is no process for responding to a response, 
notice in such cases would serve no purpose.
Federal Communications Commission             DA 13-1113
10
must include a certification along with its challenge that it has made a good faith attempt at providing 
notice to the interested party.  
20. Once the challenges have been filed in ECFS, the Bureau will review all submissions to 
verify that evidence has been submitted to make a prima facie case and then issue a Public Notice 
specifying those blocks for which rebuttals may be submitted.
45
  This Public Notice will be the official 
notice of all challenges, and will specify the date by which responses must be submitted.  
21. Challengers will have 45 days from the date of the public notice announcing the initial 
eligible census blocks to submit their challenges.  Respondents will have 45 days from the date of the 
public notice announcing the list of census blocks that warrant a response to submit replies to the 
challenges.  This time period should give parties a sufficient opportunity to formulate their challenges and 
responses.  This time period is consistent with that generally requested by commenters.
46
  After the close 
of the reply period, the Bureau will consider the challenges and responses.
47
  Where the Bureau concludes 
that the evidence shows it is more likely than not that the status of a census block should be changed,
48
the 
Bureau will make the appropriate adjustment to the list of eligible census blocks, which will be published 
in a subsequent public notice setting forth the finalized list of eligible census blocks.  
22. Finally, we conclude that we will not permit challenges below the census block level, 
such as a challenge that a particular location or group of homes within a census block is unserved. Any 
partially served census block will be treated as served.  There are more than 6 million census blocks in 
price cap service territories.  Conducting a sub-block challenge process on millions of blocks would pose 
significant burdens on both potential unsubsidized competitors as well as Bureau staff.  We conclude that 
the administrative burden of constructing and carrying out a sub-census block challenge process far 
outweighs any marginal benefit from such a process.
49
  
                                                          
45
As challengers and respondents will only have one opportunity each to submit evidence, parties will have an 
incentive to submit a full evidentiary record at the time they make their submissions.  We also take this opportunity 
to remind parties of the Commission’s rules regarding frivolous filings.  In signing a filing, an attorney is certifying 
that “he has read the document; that to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief there is good ground to 
support it; and that it is not interposed for delay.”  47 C.F.R. § 1.52.  The Commission has previously held that the 
rules regarding frivolous pleadings extend to non-attorneys.  See Warren C. Havens, Applications to Provide 
Automated Maritime Telecommunications System Stations at Various Locations in Texas et al., File No. 852997 et 
al., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 27 FCC Rcd 2756, 2759, para. 10 (2012).  Willfully making frivolous filings 
can result in sanctions.  47 C.F.R. § 1.52.
46
See, e.g., ACA Comments at 7-8; ACA March 28 Comments at 2-3 (arguing for “at least 40 days”); WISPA 
Comments at 6 (arguing for 45 days for challenges and 30 days for replies); ITTA Reply at 8 (arguing for 45 days to 
file initial challenge).
47
The Bureau does not intend to consider evidence or arguments related to the eligibility of a block for Phase II 
support unless that evidence or argument is raised within the specified time period for filing challenges and 
responses.  This is necessary to ensure fairness to parties in responding to challenges.
48
Some commenters had argued that we should require challengers to prove their claims by clear and convincing 
evidence.  See, e.g., ACA March 28 Comments at 7-8.  We conclude that a preponderance of the evidence test is 
more suitable to this type of fact-finding inquiry.
49
See ACA Comments at 10 (arguing that the Bureau should not conduct sub-census block challenges); ACA March 
28 Comments at 10; Comments of NCTA, WC Docket No. 10-90, at 3 (filed Feb. 19, 2013) (NCTA Feb. 19 
Comments); WISPA Comments at 4.  We are not persuaded that excluding partially served census blocks from 
funding eligibility “runs the risk of repeating the earlier broadband availability assessment practice in which a whole 
county was considered served if one customer in that county subscribed to a retail broadband access service.”  
Pennsylvania PUC Reply at 7.  Census blocks provide a far more granular level of detail than county data.
Federal Communications Commission             DA 13-1113
11
B. Process for Electing to Make a State-level Commitment
23. We also sought comment in the Phase II Challenge Process Public Notice regarding the 
procedures for a carrier to elect to make a state-level commitment in Phase II of Connect America.
50
  In 
this Order, we announce the procedures that a carrier must follow to make such an election.
24. After completion of the challenge process described above, the Bureau will release a 
public notice announcing Connect America Cost Model-determined support amounts for each incumbent 
price cap carrier’s funded census blocks within a given state.  After the release of that public notice, 
incumbent price cap carriers will be given 120 days to accept or decline that support on a state-by-state 
basis for each state they serve.  While some commenters argued that a longer election period is 
necessary,
51
we conclude that 120 days strikes a balance by providing sufficient time for consideration 
and ensuring that transition into Phase II is completed within a reasonable timetable.  
25. To elect to accept the support amount for a state, a carrier must submit a letter signed by 
an officer of the company declaring that the carrier accepts the support amount and commits to satisfy the
service obligations for Phase II.
52
  In its acceptance letter, a carrier accepting funding must also 
acknowledge that if it fails to meet its service obligations, it will be subject to the penalties and/or 
enforcement actions, as specified by the Commission.
53
  If a letter of credit or some other form of security 
is required to ensure compliance with these obligations, such security must be submitted along with the 
letter accepting Phase II support.
54
  
26. We are persuaded that requiring elections to be publicly disclosed, after a brief period of 
Bureau review to confirm facial completeness, will serve the public interest by enabling consumers, state 
regulators, other providers in the area, and other interested parties to know that a particular area will be 
served through Phase II.
55
  The Bureau will specify in a public notice the specific procedures for 
submitting acceptances to a designated Commission staff member.
56
This will give the Bureau an 
opportunity to review the acceptances before elections are publicly announced.  Once this review is 
complete, the finalized elections will not be afforded confidentiality.  
27. We sought comment as to what information we should require carriers to submit when 
making their elections.
57
  After further consideration, we conclude that it would not be productive to 
require carriers to specify at the time the election is made the specific locations where they intend to 
provide 6 Mbps downstream/1.5 Mbps upstream service, or where specifically they anticipate meeting 
                                                          
50
See Phase II Challenge Process Public Notice, 27 FCC Rcd at 15976-77, paras. 23-27.
51
Comments of Alaska Communications Systems, WC Docket No. 10-90, at 13 (filed Feb. 19, 2013) (ACS 
Comments) (recommending 180 days).  However, other commenters supported a 120-day period. See USTelecom 
Comments at 12 (recommending no fewer than 120 days); ITTA Reply at 9 (agreeing with USTelecom that the 
period should be no fewer than 120 days).  Also, as noted below, we have decided that only minimal information is
required to be submitted when making the election.  This should reduce the burden on carriers, allowing them to 
make their elections within the allotted 120 days.
52
See ACA Comments at 10; NCTA Feb. 19 Comments at 4; Reply of WISPA, WC Docket No. 10-90, at 3 (filed 
Mar. 4, 2013) (WISPA Reply).  
53
See USF/ICC Transformation Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 17863, para. 618. 
54
Issues regarding the requirement for a letter of credit or other form of security, if necessary, will be addressed in a 
future order.
55
See ACA Comments at 10; NCTA Feb. 19 Comments at 4; WISPA Reply at 3.
56
The designated Commission staff member will be specified in a public notice at a later date.
57
Phase II Challenge Process Public Notice, 27 FCC Rcd at 15976-77, para. 25.
Federal Communications Commission             DA 13-1113
12
their third year 85 percent buildout milestones.  Deployment plans may change over the course of the 
five-year Phase II buildout period,
58
and requiring carriers to declare this information up front would 
impose a significant burden on carriers accepting funding, while providing only limited benefit to the 
Commission and the public.
59
  Furthermore, by not requiring this additional information, carriers should 
be better able to make their elections within the 120-day window provided.  
28. A carrier may elect to decline funding for a given state by submitting a letter signed by an 
officer of the company noting it does not accept Phase II support for that state.  Alternatively, if a carrier 
fails to submit any election letter by the close of the 120-day election period, it will be deemed to have 
declined support.
29. Carriers are bound by their election decisions.  After the close of the election period, a 
carrier may not retract its election, nor may it return support in exchange for being relieved of its 
obligations under Phase II.  Such actions will have no effect.  Thus, in the case of a carrier that accepted 
funding, the carrier will still be obligated to meet its deployment obligations and will face the same 
penalties as any carrier that fails to satisfy its obligations.  This restriction is necessary not only to ensure 
the integrity of the state-level commitment process, but also to efficiently conduct the planning and 
implementation of auctions for areas in which carriers declined to make state-level commitments.
IV. PROCEDURAL MATTERS
A. Paperwork Reduction Act
30. This document contains new information collection requirements subject to the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. It will be submitted to the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) for review under section 3507(d) of the PRA. OMB, the general public, 
and other Federal agencies are invited to comment on the new information collection requirements 
contained in this proceeding. In addition, we note that pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief 
Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. § 3506(c)(4), we previously sought specific comment on 
how the Commission might further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns 
with fewer than 25 employees.
31. In this present document, we have assessed the effects of the procedures for electing to 
make a statewide commitment under Phase II and find that no businesses with fewer than 25 employees 
will be directly affected.  We have structured the challenge process to minimize burdens on businesses 
with fewer than 25 employees.  Unsubsidized competitors, many of which are small businesses, will face 
reduced burden due to the use of presumptions that a provider meeting the speed requirement also meets 
the other non-speed criteria.  Furthermore, specifying the format and probative evidence for the challenge 
process in advance will likely provide certainty to small businesses in filing any challenges and reduce the 
burden on such parties.
                                                          
58
For example, a carrier might ultimately deploy 6 Mbps/1.5 Mbps broadband infrastructure or meet its three-year 
deployment milestone by building to different locations than originally planned.  .
59
See ACS Comments at 16-17; USTelecom Comments at 13-14; Reply of ACS, WC Docket No. 10-90, at 9(filed 
Mar. 4, 2013); ITTA Reply at 9.  Some commenters favored requiring Phase II recipients to submit this information 
at the time of election.  See ACA Reply at 9; NCTA Reply at 3; WISPA Reply at 3.  Unlike for recipients of Phase I 
support, where a recipient could choose what eligible locations it would build to, carriers in Phase II are required to 
build to all locations in supported census blocks in five years.  This should give interested parties reasonable notice
of where most Phase II buildout can be expected.  Any benefit from providing initial plans on the specific locations 
where 6 Mbps/1.5 Mbps or third year build-out requirements will be met is limited by the fact that Phase II 
recipients would be free to adjust those plans over the course of the subsequent years.  
Federal Communications Commission             DA 13-1113
13
B. Final Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification
32. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA)
60
requires that a regulatory 
flexibility analysis be prepared for rulemaking proceedings, unless the agency certifies that “the rule will 
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.”
61
  The RFA generally 
defines “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,”
and “small governmental jurisdiction.”
62
  In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as 
the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act.
63
A small business concern is one 
which: (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) 
satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA).
64
33. This Order implements the rules adopted by the Commission in the USF/ICC 
Transformation Order.
65
  These clarifications do not create any burdens, benefits, or requirements that 
were not addressed by the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis attached to the USF/ICC Transformation 
Order.
66
  Therefore, we certify that the requirements of this order will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities.  The Commission will send a copy of the order including 
a copy of this final certification, in a report to Congress pursuant to SBREFA.
67
In addition, the order 
and this certification will be sent to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
Administration, and will be published in the Federal Register.
68
  
C. Congressional Review Act
34. The Commission will send a copy of this order to Congress and the Government 
Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act.
69
V. ORDERING CLAUSES
35. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 201-206, 214, 218-220, 
254, 303(r), and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and section 706 of the 
Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 154(i), 201-206, 214, 218-220, 254, 303(r), 403, 
1302, sections 0.91 and 0.291 of the Commission’s rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and the delegations of 
authority in paragraphs 103, 170, and 171 of the USF/ICC Transformation Order, FCC 11-161, this 
                                                          
60
The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. § 601 et seq., has been amended by the Contract With America Advancement Act of 1996, 
Pub. L. No. 104-121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996) (CWAAA). Title II of the CWAAA is the Small Business Regulatory 
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA).
61
5 U.S.C. § 605(b).
62
5 U.S.C. § 601(6).
63
5 U.S.C. § 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of “small business concern” in the Small Business 
Act, 15 U.S.C. § 632).  Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 601(3), the statutory definition of a small business applies “unless an 
agency, after consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and after opportunity 
for public comment, establishes one or more definitions of such term which are appropriate to the activities of the 
agency and publishes such definition(s) in the Federal Register.”
64
Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. § 632. 
65
See USF/ICC Transformation Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 17729-32, paras. 171-78.
66
See id. at 18324-63, App. O.
67
See 5 U.S.C. § 801(a)(1)(A).
68
See 5 U.S.C. § 605(b).
69
See 5 U.S.C. § 801(a)(1)(A).
Federal Communications Commission             DA 13-1113
14
Report and Order IS ADOPTED, effective thirty (30) days after publication of the text or summary 
thereof in the Federal Register, except for those rules and requirements involving Paperwork Reduction 
Act burdens, which shall become effective immediately upon announcement in the Federal Register of 
OMB approval. 
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Julie A. Veach
Chief
Wireline Competition Bureau
Federal Communications Commission                          DA 13-1113
15
APPENDIX
Cover Sheet
OMB Control Number [[###]]
FCC Form 505
Filing Entity:
FRN (if applicable):
Name of Person Filling Out Form:
Mailing Address of Person Filling Out Form:
Email Address of Person Filling Out Form:
Phone Number of Person Filling Out Form:
Name of Person Certifying Data within Form:
Mailing Address of Person Certifying Data within Form:
Email Address of Person Certifying Data within Form:
Phone Number of Person Certifying Data within Form:
Served to Unserved Challenge
Census Block 15 
Digit FIPS Code State
Provider Name As 
Listed in National 
Broadband Map
In
s
e
rt X
 if S
p
e
e
d
 
C
rite
ria
 N
o
t M
e
t
In
s
e
rt X
 if U
s
a
g
e
 
A
llo
w
a
n
c
e
 C
rite
ria
 
N
o
t M
e
t
In
s
e
rt X
 if L
a
te
n
c
y
 
C
rite
ria
 N
o
t M
e
t
In
s
e
rt X
 if P
ric
e
 
C
rite
ria
 N
o
t M
e
t
In
s
e
rt X
 if V
o
ic
e
 
C
rite
ria
 N
o
t M
e
t Type of 
Supporting 
Evidence
Additional 
Comments
OMB Control 
Number [[###]]
Federal Communications Commission                          DA 13-1113
16
Unserved to Served Challenge
Census Block 15 
Digit FIPS Code State
Name of Entity 
Providing Service
FRN used to 
File Form 
477 (if 
challenge 
being filed by 
the service 
provider)
Insert an X if you certify 
that this census block is 
served by unsubsidized 
broadband and voice 
services meeting the 
Commission's 
performance and pricing 
criteria
Type of 
Supporting 
Evidence
Additional 
Comments
OMB Control 
Number [[###]]
Response to Challenge
Census Block 15 
Digit FIPS Code State
Name of 
Entity 
Making 
Initial 
Challenge
FRN of Entity 
Making Initial 
Challenge (if 
provided)
In
s
e
rt X
 if S
p
e
e
d
 
C
rite
ria
 is
 a
t Is
s
u
e
In
s
e
rt X
 if U
s
a
g
e
 
A
llo
w
a
n
c
e
 C
rite
ria
 is
 
a
t Is
s
u
e
In
s
e
rt X
 if L
a
te
n
c
y
 
C
rite
ria
 is
 a
t Is
s
u
e
In
s
e
rt X
 if P
ric
e
 
C
rite
ria
 is
 a
t Is
s
u
e
In
s
e
rt X
 if V
o
ic
e
C
rite
ria
 is
 a
t Is
s
u
e Type of 
Supporting 
Evidence
Additional 
Comments
OMB Control 
Number [[###]]