Federal Communications Commission DA 15-139
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the matter of
Connect America Fund
Rural Broadband Experiments
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
WC Docket No 10-90
WC Docket No. 14-259
Adopted:  January 30, 2015 Released:  January 30, 2015
By the Deputy Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau: 
ORDER
1. In this Order, we deny petitions filed by AirNorth Communications, Inc.; Agile Network 
Builders, LLC; Brainstorm Internet Inc.; Chaffee County Telecom, LLC; Cricelli, Inc.; Crystal 
Broadband Networks, Inc.; Declaration Networks Group; De Novo Group; Donnell, Michael D. (d/b/a 
San Joaquin Broadband); Giant Communications, Inc.; Last Mile Broadband; Mercury Wireless Inc.; 
Rural Broadband Services Corporation, Inc.; Tower Communications LLC; and Worldcall Interconnect, 
Inc. (collectively, the Petitioners) for a waiver of the rural broadband experiments requirement to file 
three years of audited financial statements.1 We also remove one additional entity—Lennon Telephone 
Company (Lennon)—from further consideration for rural broadband experiments support for failing to 
  
1 Petition of AirNorth Communications, Inc. for Waiver of Audited Financial Statements, WC Docket No. 10-90 
(filed Dec. 19, 2014) (AirNorth Petition); Letter from Stephen E. Coran, Counsel for Agile Network Builders, LLC, 
to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WC Docket No. 10-90 (filed Dec. 19, 2014) (Agile Financial Petition); 
Petition of Brainstorm Internet for Waiver of Requirement to Provide Three Years of Audited Financial Statements 
for the Post Selection Review, WC Docket No. 10-90 (filed Dec. 18, 2014) (Brainstorm Petition); Waiver Request 
of Chaffee County Telecom, LLC, WC Docket No. 10-90 (filed Dec. 19, 2014); Letter from Stephen E. Coran, 
Counsel for Cricelli, Inc., to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WC Docket No. 10-90 (filed Dec. 19, 2014) 
(Cricelli Financial Petition); Petition for Waiver of Crystal Broadband Networks, WC Docket No. 10-90 (filed Dec. 
17, 2014) ; Petition of Declaration Networks Group, Inc. for Waiver of Requirement to Provide Three Years of 
Audited Financial Statements for the Post Selection Review, WC Docket No. 10-90 (filed Dec. 11, 2014); Letter 
from Yahel Ben-David, President, De Novo Group, to Federal Communications Commission, WC Docket No. 10-
90 (filed Dec. 16, 2014); Letter from Stephen E. Coran, Counsel for Michael D. Donnell d/b/a San Joaquin 
Broadband, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WC Docket No. 10-90 (filed Dec. 17, 2014) (Donnell Petition);
Last Mile Broadband LLC Request for Waiver, WC Docket Nos. 10-90, 14-58 (filed Dec. 19, 2014) (Last Mile 
Petition); Petition of Mercury Wireless, Inc. for Waiver of Requirement to Provide Three Years of Audited 
Financial Statements by December 19, 2014 for Rural Broadband Experiments Post-Selection Review, WC Docket 
No. 10-90 (filed Dec. 19, 2014) (Mercury Wireless Petition); Rural Broadband Services Corporation, Inc. Request 
for Waiver of Requirement for Three Years of Audited Financial Statements, WC Docket No. 10-90 (filed Dec. 18, 
2014) (RBSC Petition); Petition of Tower Communications LLC for Waiver of Requirement to Provide Three Years 
of Audited Financial Statements for the Post Selection Review, WC Docket No. 10-90 (filed Dec. 19, 2014); 
Petition for Waiver of Worldcall Interconnect Inc., WC Docket No. 10-90 (filed Dec. 16, 2014).  See also Wireline 
Competition Bureau Announces Availability of Additional Funding for Rural Broadband Experiments; Seeks 
Comment on Waiver Petitions of Provisionally Selected Bidders, WC Docket Nos. 10-90, 14-259, Public Notice, 
DA 14-1889, Attach. B (Wireline Comp. Bur. rel. Dec. 23, 2014) (Rural Broadband Experiments Waivers Public 
Notice).
Federal Communications Commission DA 15-139
2
file the required financial information and not submitting a waiver request.  We also deny petitions filed 
by Agile Network Builders, LLC, Cricelli, Inc., and Last Mile Broadband for a waiver of the rural 
broadband experiments requirement that their network diagram be certified by a professional engineer.2  
Because we do not find good cause to waive the requirements established by the Commission, we remove 
these entities from further consideration for rural broadband experiments support.  Collectively, these 
applicants sought almost $55 million in funding, which will now be available to other bidders.  We will 
announce the provisionally selected next-in-line bidders in a future Public Notice.  Finally, we deny the 
request filed by the Alliance of Rural Broadband Applicants (Alliance) to delay the February 3rd deadline 
for provisionally selected bidders to file their letter of credit (LOC) commitment letters.3
I. BACKGROUND
2. In the Rural Broadband Experiments Order, the Commission required provisionally 
selected bidders to submit certain information and materials by a specified deadline that would enable the 
Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau) to undertake a financial and technical review of the selected 
bidders before authorizing them to receive support.  Specifically, entities were required to provide the 
most recent three consecutive years of audited financial statements, including balance sheets, net income, 
and cash flow, and to submit a description of the technology and system design used to deliver voice and 
broadband service, including a network diagram certified by a professional engineer within ten days of 
Public Notice of the provisionally selected bidders.4 The Commission reasoned that these specific 
requirements would enable the Bureau to evaluate the financial and technical qualifications of each 
selected bidder.5  
3. On December 5, 2014, the Bureau released a list of 37 entities provisionally selected as 
winning bidders for rural broadband experiments support.6 As part of the framework established by the 
Commission to be authorized to receive such support, each of these entities was required to submit the 
required financial and technical information by December 19, 2014.7  Six provisionally selected bidders 
defaulted by either withdrawing from consideration from support or failing to submit the required 
information by the deadline.8 Of the remaining 31 provisionally selected bidders, 15 submitted the 
financial and technical information required by the Commission, while 15 entities filed petitions 
requesting waiver of the requirement to provide three consecutive years of audited financial statements.9  
Three of those 15 entities that sought a waiver of the financial information filing requirement also 
  
2 Letter from Stephen E. Coran, Counsel for Agile Network Builders, LLC, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, 
WC Docket No. 10-90 (filed Dec. 19, 2014) (Agile Technical Petition); Letter from Stephen E. Coran, Counsel for 
Cricelli, Inc., to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WC Docket No. 10-90 (filed Dec. 19, 2014) (Cricelli Technical
Petition); Last Mile Petition at 3.
3 See Petition for Waiver of the Alliance of Rural Broadband Applicants, WC Docket Nos. 10-90, 14-58 (filed Jan. 
27, 2015) (Alliance Petition).
4 See Connect America Fund; ETC Annual Reports and Certifications, WC Docket Nos. 10-90, 14-58, Report and 
Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 29 FCC Rcd 8769, 8787-88, para. 54 (2014) (Rural Broadband 
Experiments Order).
5 See id. at 8780-81, para. 31.
6 See Wireline Competition Bureau Announces Entities Provisionally Selected for Rural Broadband Experiments; 
Sets Deadlines for Submission of Additional Information, WC Docket No. 10-90, Public Notice, DA 14-1772 
(Wireline Comp. Bur. rel. Dec. 5, 2014).
7 See id.
8 See Rural Broadband Experiments Waivers Public Notice at Attach. A. 
9 See id. at Attach. B.  
Federal Communications Commission DA 15-139
3
requested a waiver of the requirement that their network diagram be certified by a professional engineer.  
Finally, Lennon did not file three years of audited financial statements and did not request a waiver.  
4. On January 27, 2015, the Alliance filed a petition for waiver of the Commission’s letter 
of credit requirements for provisionally selected bidders.10 In addition to seeking specific changes to 
these requirements, the Alliance requested that the Bureau suspend the February 3rd deadline for 
provisionally selected bidders to submit their LOC commitment letters.11  
II. DISCUSSION
5. We conclude that the standards for waiver have not been met.12 While some Petitioners 
seek a waiver to have more time to fulfill the requirements established by the Commission, and other 
Petitioners seek a waiver because they are unable to meet the requirements for the experiments, we 
conclude that the public interest would not be served by granting these waivers.  We conclude that strict 
enforcement of the deadlines and filing requirements adopted by the Commission is appropriate given the 
accelerated time frame for the rural broadband experiments.13 Granting such relief would preclude 
consideration of other applicants that were able to submit the requisite financial and technical showings 
within the time frame established by the Commission.  Denying the waiver requests and proceeding to 
identify next-in-line bidders fulfills the Commission’s objective for the rural broadband experiments to 
inform key decisions that the Commission would be making regarding the design of the competitive 
bidding process that will occur in Phase II of the Connect America Fund, while not delaying 
implementation of Phase II.14  
  
10 See Alliance Petition at 10-12.
11 See id. at 12.
12 47 C.F.R. § 1.3.  The Commission may exercise its discretion to waive a rule where the particular facts make strict 
compliance inconsistent with the public interest.  Northeast Cellular Telephone Co. v. FCC, 897 F.2d 1164, 1166 
(D.C. Cir. 1990) (Northeast Cellular).  In addition, the Commission may take into account considerations of 
hardship, equity, or more effective implementation of overall policy on an individual basis. WAIT Radio v. FCC, 
418 F.2d 1153, 1159 (D.C. Cir. 1969); Northeast Cellular, 897 F.2d at 1166.  Waiver of the Commission’s rules is 
appropriate only if both (i) special circumstances warrant a deviation from the general rule, and (ii) such deviation 
will serve the public interest.  Northeast Cellular, 897 F.2d at 1166.  “[D]eadlines can only be waived under 
‘unusual or compelling circumstances.’”  NetworkIP, LLC v. FCC, 548 F.3d 116, 126 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (citation 
omitted).  
13 We note that the Commission has strictly enforced filing deadlines in other contexts.  See, e.g., Vanessa Cintron, 
Noble Ventures, Inc., On Request for Inspection of Records, FOIA Control No. 2014-282, Memorandum Opinion 
and Order (2014) (dismissing an application for review that was filed three days late and noting “[w]hile losing the 
right of appeal when a deadline is missed by a brief time ‘may seem unduly harsh . . . short of exceptional 
circumstances (which are not present here), courts have generally respected statutory and regulatory deadlines’”); 
Totally Jesus Network, Inc. Application for a New NCE FM Station at Gold Beach , Oregon, et al., File No. 
BNPED-20071018AON, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 29 FCC Rcd 6414 (2014) (affirming a decision to 
dismiss an application for a new noncommercial FM station after the applicant experienced technical difficulties and 
filed nine days past the filing deadline).  
14 See Connect America Fund; ETC Annual Reports and Certifications; Petition of USTelecom for Forbearance 
Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 160(c) from Obsolete ILEC Regulatory Obligations that Inhibit Deployment of Next-
Generation Networks, WC Docket Nos. 10-90, 14-58, 14-192, Report and Order, FCC 14-190, paras. 8 (stating 
expectation that the Bureau will finalize the list of census blocks for the offer of support in early 2015), 12 
(indicating that rural broadband experiments will help inform decisions regarding the design of the Phase II auction), 
84 (emphasizing intention not to delay offer of model-based support) (rel. Dec. 18, 2014) (December CAF Order); 
Rural Broadband Experiments Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 8775-76, para. 14.
Federal Communications Commission DA 15-139
4
6. The Commission intended for the rural broadband experiments to provide critical 
information regarding the interest and ability of alternative providers to build networks that deliver robust 
services for an amount of money equal to or less than the support amounts calculated by the adopted 
Phase II Connect America Cost Model.15 Through both the expression of interest stage and the 
application stage of the experiments, we have learned a great deal about the level of competitive interest 
in providing such services.  However, we must balance that interest with our duty as stewards of public 
funding.16 We therefore must ensure that the finite rural broadband experiments budget is distributed to 
entities that provide concrete evidence of their financial and technical capability to fulfill their 
commitment not only to build voice and broadband capable networks, but also to provide reasonably 
comparable services at reasonably comparable rates.17
7. Several Petitioners submitted unaudited financial statements as alternative evidence of 
their financial capability.18 Though unaudited financial statements provide some detail regarding the 
financial state of an entity, they do not provide the same level of assurance as audited financial 
statements.  By adopting the requirement to submit three years of audited financial statements, the 
Commission ensured that the financial picture of the selected bidders had been audited by a neutral third 
party – an independent certified public accountant that is subject to professional standards when reaching 
a conclusion whether the financial statements prepared by management are in accordance with Generally 
Accepted Accounting Principles and free from material misstatement.  Given the accelerated timing of the 
rural broadband experiments, we are not convinced that the public interest would be served by granting 
the waiver requests.  Doing so would provide less assurance regarding the true financial picture of the 
Petitioners and would likely require a more resource-intensive effort by the Bureau to assess the 
alternative financial materials of those entities seeking a waiver.  This would divert the Bureau from 
fulfilling the Commission’s overarching objective of moving swiftly to implement Phase II.19  
8. Similarly, other Petitioners submitted financial materials such as tax returns or financial 
projections that provide no independent verification of the financial state of these entities.20 Again, for 
the same reasons, we conclude that the public interest would not be served by waiving the Commission’s 
financial submission requirements and engaging in a more protracted effort to determine whether the 
Petitioners have successfully demonstrated their financial capability.  Such alternative submissions 
provide even less assurance to the Commission regarding the financial situation of the provisionally
selected bidder than the unaudited financial statements.  Finally, we note that that Lennon did not comply 
with the Commission’s financial review requirement to submit three years of financial statements 
certified by an independent auditor and failed even to request a waiver.  As the Commission recently 
stated, it expects all recipients of funding, “even those new to the Commission’s processes or with small 
  
15 Rural Broadband Experiments Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 8771-72, para. 6.  See also Reply Comments of the 
Minnesota Telecom Alliance Opposing Waiver Requests, WC Docket Nos. 10-90, 14-259, at 3-4 (filed Jan. 13, 
2015) (MTA Reply Comments).
16 Comments of Midwest Energy Cooperative, WC Docket Nos. 10-90, 14-259, at 2 (filed Jan 6, 2015) (Midwest 
Comments); Comments of the United States Telecom Association, WC Docket Nos. 10-90, 14-259, at 2 (filed Jan. 
6, 2015) (USTelecom Comments); MTA Reply Comments at 4.
17 Comments of NTCA-The Rural Broadband Association on Waiver Petitions of Provisionally Selected Bidders, 
WC Docket Nos. 10-90, 14-259, at 2-3 (filed Jan 6, 2015).
18 See, e.g., Airnorth Petition at 2-3; Agile Financial Petition, Attach. at 2; Brainstorm Petition at 1; Mercury 
Wireless Petition at 5. 
19 MTA Reply Comments at 5; Reply Comments of the Utilities Telecom Council, WC Docket Nos. 10-90, 14-259, 
at 2,4 (filed Jan. 13, 2015) (UTC Reply Comments).
20 See, e.g., Cricelli Financial Petition, Attach. at 2; Donnell Petition, Attach. at 2-3; Last Mile Petition at 2-4; RBSC 
Petition at 2.
Federal Communications Commission DA 15-139
5
staffs, to implement appropriate procedures to ensure compliance with the Commission’s filing deadlines 
and other regulatory requirements.”21 Because we conclude that Lennon and the Petitioners have failed to 
meet the Commission’s requirements for financial submissions, we remove them from any further 
consideration for such support.  For the same reasons we are not granting waivers to any of the current 
provisionally selected bidders, we also decline to grant the requests for waiver of those next-in-line 
bidders that sought waivers of the financial or technical information requirements.
9. We are not persuaded by arguments that the filing deadline of 10 business days following 
public notification of provisionally selected bidders was insufficient time for these bidders to obtain 
audited financial statements.22 All bidders have been on notice since the release of the Rural Broadband 
Experiments Order in July 2014 that the Commission required provisionally selected bidders to provide 
three consecutive years of audited financial statements within 10 business days of public notification of 
their selection.23 Any potential rural broadband experiments applicant should have factored this 
requirement, as well as all other rural broadband experiments requirements and obligations, into their 
initial decision to bid for support.24 We similarly are not convinced that we should provide additional 
time to certain entities to produce audited financial statements.25 All provisionally selected bidders had 
ample time—over five months from the release of the Rural Broadband Experiments Order—to prepare 
for this requirement.26 Moreover, the Commission recently affirmed the same 10 business day timeframe 
for entities interested in continuing to be considered for rural broadband experiments support in the event 
any of the provisionally selected bidders defaulted,27 and numerous other applicants were able to meet 
that deadline to submit the required information.  Effectively extending the deadline for certain 
provisionally selected bidders to provide audited financial statements is unfair to those entities that took 
the necessary steps to comply with the requirement by the deadline.  
10. Nor are we persuaded that we should suspend the deadline for securing a commitment for 
a letter of credit.  Doing so would prevent the Bureau from identifying a new group of provisionally 
selected bidders before it finalizes the list of census blocks that will be subject to the offer of model-based 
support.  That, in turn, would be prejudicial to those next-in-line bidders that submitted the requisite 
financial and technical information by the January 6th deadline established by the Commission.
  
21 See December CAF Order at para. 138. 
22 See Mercury Wireless Petition at 4-5; Reply Comments of Worldcall Interconnect, Inc., WC Docket Nos. 10-90, 
14-259, at 10-11 (filed Jan. 13, 2015) (Worldcall Reply Comments).
23 Rural Broadband Experiments Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 8787-88, para. 54.  See also Midwest Comments at 2; MTA 
Reply Comments at 4-5; Letter from Andrea E. Welter, Counsel to Skybeam, LLC, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, 
FCC, WC Docket Nos. 10-90, 14-259 at 1-2 (filed Jan. 6, 2015) (Skybeam Comments); USTelecom Comments at 3.
24 See Skybeam Comments at 2-3.  The fact that the Bureau indicated prior to the application deadline in an FAQ on 
the Commission’s website that parties unable to produce three consecutive years of audited financial statements 
could seek a waiver of this requirement in no way undermines our decision today to require strict adherence to the 
Commission’s rules for the experiments and deny all of the waiver requests.  See, e.g., Mary V. Harris Foundation 
v. FCC (13-1304), slip op. at 14 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 20, 2015) (“An agency does not abuse its discretion by applying a 
bright-line rule consistently in order both to preserve incentives for compliance and to realize the benefits of easy 
administration that the rule was designed to achieve.”).  The FAQ merely was intended to inform entities not 
familiar with Commission rules of their procedural options.  
25 Comments of American Cable Association, WC Docket Nos. 10-90, 14-259, at 2 (filed Jan. 6, 2015); Reply 
Comments of Mercury Wireless, Inc., WC Docket Nos. 10-90, 14-259, at 5-7 (filed Jan. 13, 2015); Worldcall Reply 
Comments at 3-9.
26 USTelecom Comments at 3; UTC Reply Comments at 2.
27 See December CAF Order at para. 83.
Federal Communications Commission DA 15-139
6
11. We also do not agree with some commenters that an entity’s ability to obtain a LOC 
commitment letter demonstrates its financial capability.28 The Commission expressly indicated that the 
Bureau’s financial review and LOC requirement are two distinct prerequisites for provisionally selected 
bidders to fulfill before being authorized to receive support.  The Commission not only set two separate 
deadlines for bidders to submit this information,29 but also stated that “[o]nce the Bureau has determined 
that the entity is financially and technically qualified to receive experiment support and that the LOC 
commitment letter is sufficient, it will release a public notice indicating that the entity is ready to be 
authorized to receive support.” 30 It also noted that Commission staff would “perform a review to ensure 
that the selected applicants meet our expectations for technical and financial capability to conduct an 
experiment before any support is provided.”31 Therefore, though a bank may examine an entity’s 
financial standing before determining whether to issue a LOC, the Commission intended for the Bureau to 
undertake its own independent review to determine an entity’s financial capability to build out a network 
and provide universal service to the consumers in the area in which it would receive support.  
12. Finally, we deny petitions filed by Agile Network Builders, LLC (Agile), Cricelli, Inc. 
(Cricelli), and Last Mile Broadband (Last Mile) for a waiver of the rural broadband experiments technical 
requirement to have their network diagrams certified by a professional engineer.  Similar to the audited 
financials requirement, the purpose of having an entity’s network diagrams certified by a professional 
engineer was to have an educated engineer verify that the entity’s proposed network would be able to 
fulfill the service obligations to which it had committed.  Agile and Cricelli requested a waiver due to an 
inability to enlist the services of a professional engineer familiar with either their specific technology or 
terrain issues.32 Conversely, Last Mile requested an extension of time due to the “shortened time frame 
(10 days) to submit the first round of documentation” and the unavailability of its selected professional 
engineer.33  
13. We do not find any compelling reason to grant these requests.  With regard to Agile and 
Cricelli, we note that the vast majority of provisionally selected bidders—28 entities proposing to build 
different types of networks in almost 20 different states—were able to obtain certification of their 
network diagrams by a professional engineer.  The inability of two bidders to obtain such a certification 
does not provide confidence that the proposed network design is sufficient to provide the requisite service 
in the areas for which Agile and Cricelli would receive support. We therefore deny these waiver requests.  
Similarly, we deny Last Mile’s request for an extension of time.  As explained above, provisionally 
selected bidders have been on notice since the release of the Rural Broadband Experiments Order that the 
Commission would require certain technical information to be submitted within 10 business days of 
public notification of their selection.  Moreover, the fact that Last Mile’s selected professional engineer 
was unavailable to make the certification by the deadline is not persuasive grounds for a waiver.  Last 
Mile had ample time in the five months between the release of the Rural Broadband Experiments Order
and the deadline for submission of its required technical information to secure the services of an engineer 
that could certify its proposed network diagrams.  Again, we conclude that strict adherence to the 
  
28 See Cricelli Financial Petition, Attach. at 2; Reply Comments of Tower Communications LLC, WC Docket Nos. 
10-90, 14-259, at 2 (filed Jan 13, 2015); Response of Michael D. Donnell d/b/a San Joaquin Broadband to 
Comments on Waiver Petitions of Provisionally Selected Bidders, WC Docket Nos. 10-90, 14-259, at 5-6 (filed Jan. 
13, 2015) 
29 Rural Broadband Experiments Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 8787-88, para. 54.  
30 Id. at 8787, para. 52 (emphasis added).
31 Id. (emphasis added).
32 Agile Technical Petition, Attach. at 1; Cricelli Technical Petition, Attach. at 1. 
33 Last Mile Petition at 3.
Federal Communications Commission DA 15-139
7
deadlines adopted by the Commission for these rural broadband experiments would better serve the public 
interest.
III. ORDERING CLAUSES
14. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 5(c), 201, and 254 of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 154(i), 155(c), 201, 254, and sections 0.91, 
0.291, and 1.3 of the Commission’s rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.3, that this Order IS ADOPTED.
15. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petitions for waiver of the rural broadband 
experiments financial review requirements, which requires provisionally selected bidders to provide the 
most recent three consecutive years of audited financial statements, filed by AirNorth Communications, 
Inc.; Agile Network Builders, LLC; Brainstorm Internet Inc.; Chaffee County Telecom, LLC; Cricelli, 
Inc.; Crystal Broadband Networks, Inc.; Declaration Networks Group; De Novo Group; Donnell, Michael 
D. (d/b/a San Joaquin Broadband); Giant Communications, Inc.; Last Mile Broadband; Mercury Wireless 
Inc.; Rural Broadband Services Corporation, Inc.; Tower Communications LLC; and Worldcall 
Interconnect, Inc., ARE DENIED as described herein.
16. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petitions for waiver of the rural broadband 
experiments technical review requirements, which requires provisionally selected bidders to submit a 
description of the technology and system design used to deliver voice and broadband service, including a 
network diagram certified by a professional engineer, filed by Agile Network Builders, LLC; Cricelli, 
Inc.; and Last Mile Broadband, ARE DENIED as described herein.
17. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petition for waiver filed by the Alliance of Rural 
Broadband Applicants, IS DENIED IN PART as described herein. 
18. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to section 1.102(b)(1) of the Commission’s 
rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.102(b)(1), this Order SHALL BE EFFECTIVE upon release.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Carol Mattey
Deputy Bureau Chief
Wireline Competition Bureau