F EDER A L C OMM U N ICATI ON S C OMMISS ION 
W A SHI NG TON 
OFFICE O F 
THE CHAIRMAN 
The Honorable Rob Bishop 
U.S. House of Representatives 
123 Cannon House Office Building 
Washington, D.C. 20515 
Dear Representative Bishop: 
October 24, 2014 
Thank you for your letter requesting that the Commission consider proposals from 
broadband providers to permit some flexibility in the implementation of Phase II of the Connect 
America Fund (CAF II). Your views are very important and will be included in the record of the 
proceeding and considered as part of the Commission's review. 
The universal service program is one of the most important tools at our disposal to ensure 
that consumers and businesses in rural America have the same opportunities as their urban and 
suburban counterparts to be active participants in the United States of the 21st century. We are 
focused on updating the universal service high-cost program to ensure that we are delivering the 
best possible voice and broadband experiences to rural areas of states such as Utah, within the 
confmes of our Connect America budget, all while providing increased certainty and 
predictability for all carriers, and a climate for increased broadband expansion. 
In April of this year, the Commission adopted a Connect America Fund Phase II Report 
and Order to move forward with Connect America for price-cap carriers. In addition, in an 
associated Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM), the Commission sought comment 
on a number ofthe issues you raise, including revising the current broadband perfmmance 
obligations to require minimum speeds of 10 Mbps downstream. As you note, the FNPRM also 
seeks comment on a proposal to allow CAF II recipients more flexibility in meeting their 
performance obligations, including whether we should extend the term of support to longer than 
five years. Many price cap carriers have argued that building networks capable of providing 10 
Mbps will take more time and more funding than meeting the current 4/1 Mbps speed 
requirement because it will require extending fiber farther into the network and deploying 
additional equipment. Other commenters argue that extending the CAF II term of support 
beyond five years will delay a competitive bidding process for the areas served by price cap 
carriers. The Commission's staff is reviewing the record and giving all of the arguments due 
consideration before we move forward with any decisions. 
With respect to the points you raise on the importance of targeting CAF II support to 
unserved areas and not subsidizing areas where private investment already exists, the 
Commission has a responsibility to ensure that the funds we collect to support universal service 
programs are used in the most efficient and effective way possible. To that point, the FNPRM 
Page 2- The Honorable Rob Bishop 
proposes to exclude from eligibility those areas served by any provider offering voice and 
broadband services that meet the Commission's service obligations, regardless of whether the 
provider is subsidized or unsubsidized. 
I welcome a dialogue with stakeholders as to how best to accomplish our shared 
objectives. I look forward to working with you as we continue reforming and modernizing the 
Universal Service Fund high-cost program- as well as other components of the Universal 
Service Fund- to ensure that all Americans have access to robust voice and broadband services. 
I appreciate your interest in this matter. Please let me know if 1 can be of any further 
assistance. 
Sincerely, 
Tom Wheeler 
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS CO MMISS ION 
WASHINGTON 
OFFICE OF 
THE CHAIRMAN 
The Honorable Jason Chaffetz 
U.S. House ofRepresentatives 
2464 Rayburn House Office Building 
Washington, D.C. 20515 
Dear Representative Chaffetz : 
October 24, 2014 
Thank you for your letter requesting that the Commission consider proposals from 
broadband providers to permit some flexibility in the implementation of Phase II of the Connect 
America Fund (CAF II). Your views are very important and will be included in the record of the 
proceeding and considered as part of the Commission's review. 
The universal service program is one of the most important tools at our disposal to ensure 
that consumers and businesses in rural America have the same opportunities as their urban and 
suburban counterparts to be active participants in the United States of the 21st century. We are 
focused on updating the universal service high-cost program to ensure that we are delivering the 
best possible voice and broadband experiences to rural areas of states such as Utah, within the 
confmes of our Connect America budget, all while providing increased certainty and 
predictability for all carriers, and a climate for increased broadband expansion. 
In April of this year, the Commission adopted a Connect America Fund Phase II Report 
and Order to move forward with Connect America for price-cap carriers. In addition, in an 
associated Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM), the Commission sought comment 
on a number of the issues you raise, including revising the current broadband performance 
obligations to require minimum speeds of 10 Mbps downstream. As you note, the FNPRM also 
seeks comment on a proposal to allow CAF II recipients more flexibility in meeting their 
performance obligations, including whether we should extend the term of support to longer than 
five years . Many price cap carriers have argued that building networks capable of providing 10 
Mbps will take more time and more funding than meeting the current 4/ 1 Mbps speed 
requirement because it will require extending fiber farther into the network and deploying 
additional equipment. Other commenters argue that extending the CAF II term of support 
beyond five years will delay a competitive bidding process for the areas served by price cap 
carriers. The Commission's staff is reviewing the record and giving all ofthe arguments due 
consideration before we move forward with any decisions. 
With respect to the points you raise on the importance of targeting CAF II support to 
unserved areas and not subsidizing areas where private investment already exists, the 
Commission has a responsibility to ensure that the funds we collect to support universal service 
programs are used in the most efficient and effective way possible. To that point, the FNPRM 
Page 2- The Honorable Jason Chaffetz 
proposes to exclude from eligibility those areas served by any provider offering voice and 
broadband services that meet the Commission's service obligations, regardless of whether the 
provider is subsidized or unsubsidized. 
I welcome a dialogue with stakeholders as to how best to accomplish our shared 
objectives. I look forward to working with you as we continue reforming and modernizing the 
Universal Service Fund high-cost program- as well as other components of the Universal 
Service Fund- to ensure that all Americans have access to robust voice and broadband services. 
I appreciate your interest in this matter. Please let me know if 1 can be of any further 
assistance. 
Sincerely, 
Tom Wheeler 
OFF I CE O F 
THE C H AIRMAN 
The Honorable Orrin Hatch 
United States Senate 
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS CO M MISSION 
WASHINGTON 
October 24, 2014 
104 Hart Senate Office Building 
Washington, D.C. 20510 
Dear Senator Hatch: 
Thank you for your letter requesting that the Commission consider proposals from 
broadband providers to permit some flexibility in the implementation of Phase II of the Connect 
America Fund (CAF II). Your views are very important and will be included in the record of the 
proceeding and considered as part of the Commission1s review. 
The universal service program is one of the most important tools at our disposal to ensure 
that consumers and businesses in rural America have the same opportunities as their urban and 
suburban counterparts to be active participants in the United States ofthe 21 51 century. We are 
focused on updating the universal service high-cost program to ensure that we are delivering the 
best possible voice and broadband experiences to rural areas of states such as Utah, within the 
confmes of our Connect America budget, all while providing increased certainty and 
predictability for all carriers, and a climate for increased broadband expansion. 
In April of this year, the Commission adopted a Connect America Fund Phase II Report 
and Order to move forward with Connect America for price-cap carriers. In addition, in an 
associated Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM), the Commission sought comment 
on a number of the issues you raise, including revising the current broadband performance 
obligations to require minimum speeds of 10 Mbps downstream. As you note, the FNPRM also 
seeks comment on a proposal to allow CAF II recipients more flexibility in meeting their 
performance obligations, including whether we should extend the term of support to longer than 
five years. Many price cap carriers have argued that building networks capable of providing 1 0 
Mbps will take more time and more funding than meeting the current 4/ 1 Mbps speed 
requirement because it will require extending fiber farther into the network and deploying 
additional equipment. Other commenters argue that extending the CAF II term of support 
beyond five years will delay a competitive bidding process for the areas served by price cap 
carriers. The Commission's staff is reviewing the record and giving all of the arguments due 
consideration before we move forward with any decisions. 
With respect to the points you raise on the importance of targeting CAF II support to 
unserved areas and not subsidizing areas where private investment already exists, the 
Commission has a responsibility to ensure that the funds we collect to support universal service 
programs are used in the most efficient and effective way possible. To that point, the FNPRM 
Page 2- The Honorable Orrin Hatch 
proposes to exclude from eligibility those areas served by any provider offering voice and 
broadband services that meet the Commission ' s service obligations, regardless of whether the 
provider is subsidized or unsubsidized. 
I welcome a dialogue with stakeholders as to how best to accomplish our shared 
objectives. I look forward to working with you as we continue reforming and modernizing the 
Universal Service Fund high-cost program- as well as other components of the Universal 
Service Fund- to ensure that all Americans have access to robust voice and broadband services. 
I appreciate your interest in this matter. Please let me know if 1 can be of any further 
assistance. 
Sincerely, 
Tom Wheeler 
OFF I CE OF 
THE C H AIRMAN 
The Honorable Mike Lee 
United States Senate 
FEDERAL COMMUNIC ATIONS CO M M ISSION 
WASHI N GTON 
October 24, 2014 
316 Hart Senate Office Building 
Washington, D.C. 20510 
Dear Senator Lee: 
Thank you for your letter requesting that the Commission consider proposals from 
broadband providers to permit some flexibility in the implementation of Phase II of the Connect 
America Fund (CAF II). Your views are very important and will be included in the record of the 
proceeding and considered as part of the Commission1s review. 
The universal service program is one of the most important tools at our disposal to ensure 
that consumers and businesses in rural America have the same opportunities as their urban and 
suburban counterparts to be active participants in the United States of the 21st century. We are 
focused on updating the universal service high-cost program to ensure that we are delivering the 
best possible voice and broadband experiences to rural areas of states such as Utah, within the 
confmes of our Connect America budget, all while providing increased certainty and 
predictability for all carriers, and a climate for increased broadband expansion. 
In April of this year, the Commission adopted a Connect America Fund Phase II Report 
and Order to move forward with Connect America for price-cap carriers. In addition, in an 
associated Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM), the Commission sought comment 
on a number of the issues you raise, including revising the current broadband performance 
obligations to require minimum speeds of 10 Mbps downstream. As you note, the FNPRM also 
seeks comment on a proposal to allow CAF II recipients more flexibility in meeting their 
performance obligations, including whether we should extend the term of support to longer than 
five years. Many price cap caniers have argued that building networks capable of providing 10 
Mbps will take more time and more funding than meeting the current 4/ 1 Mbps speed 
requirement because it will require extending fiber farther into the network and deploying 
additional equipment. Other commenters argue that extending the CAF II term of support 
beyond five years will delay a competitive bidding process for the areas served by price cap 
carriers. The Commission's staff is reviewing the record and giving all of the arguments due 
consideration before we move f01ward with any decisions . 
With respect to the points you raise on the importance of targeting CAF II support to 
unserved areas and not subsidizing areas where private investment already exists, the 
Commission has a responsibility to ensure that the funds we collect to support universal service 
programs are used in the most efficient and effective way possible. To that point, the FNPRM 
Page 2- The Honorable Mike Lee 
proposes to exclude from eligibility those areas served by any provider offering voice and 
broadband services that meet the Commission's service obligations, regardless ofwhetherthe 
provider is subsidized or unsubsidized. 
I welcome a dialogue with stakeholders as to how best to accomplish our shared 
objectives. I look forward to working with you as we continue reforming and modernizing the 
Universal Service Fund high-cost program- as well as other components of the Universal 
Service Fund- to ensure that all Americans have access to robust voice and broadband services. 
I appreciate your interest in this matter. Please let me know if 1 can be of any further 
assistance. 
Tom Wheeler 
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 
WASHINGTON 
OFFICE OF 
THE CHAIRMAN 
The Honorable Chris Stewart 
U.S. House ofRepresentatives 
323 Cannon House Office Building 
Washington, D.C. 20515 
Dear Representative Stewart : 
October 24,2014 
Thank you for your letter requesting that the Commission consider proposals from 
broadband providers to permit some flexibility in the implementation of Phase II of the Connect 
America Fund (CAF II). Your views are very important and will be included in the record of the 
proceeding and considered as part of the Commission's review. 
The universal service program is one of the most important tools at our disposal to ensure 
that consumers and businesses in rural America have the same opportunities as their urban and 
suburban counterparts to be active participants in the United States of the 21st century. We are 
focused on updating the universal service high-cost program to ensure that we are delivering the 
best possible voice and broadband experiences to rural areas of states such as Utah, within the 
confmes of our Connect America budget, all while providing increased certainty and 
predictability for all carriers, and a climate for increased broadband expansion. 
In April of this year, the Commission adopted a Connect America Fund Phase II Report 
and Order to move forward with Connect America for price-cap carriers. In addition, in an 
associated Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM), the Commission sought comment 
on a number ofthe issues you raise, including revising the current broadband performance 
obligations to require minimum speeds of 10 Mbps downstream. As you note, the FNPRM also 
seeks comment on a proposal to allow CAF II recipients more flexibility in meeting their 
performance obligations, including whether we should extend the term of support to longer than 
five years. Many price cap carriers have argued that building networks capable of providing 10 
Mbps will take more time and more funding than meeting the current 4/1 Mbps speed 
requirement because it will require extending fiber farther into the network and deploying 
additional equipment. Other commenters argue that extending the CAF II term of support 
beyond five years will delay a competitive bidding process for the areas served by price cap 
carriers. The Commission's staff is reviewing the record and giving all of the arguments due 
consideration before we move forward with any decisions. 
With respect to the points you raise on the importance of targeting CAF II support to 
unserved areas and not subsidizing areas where private investment already exists, the 
Commission has a responsibility to ensure that the funds we collect to support universal service 
programs are used in the most efficient and effective way possible. To that point, the FNPRM 
Page 2- The Honorable Chris Stewart 
proposes to exclude from eligibility those areas served by any provider offering voice and 
broadband services that meet the Commission's service obligations, regardless of whether the 
provider is subsidized or unsubsidized. 
I welcome a dialogue with stakeholders as to how best to accomplish our shared 
objectives. I look forward to working with you as we continue reforming and modernizing the 
Universal Service Fund high-cost program- as well as other components of the Universal 
Service Fund- to ensure that all Americans have access to robust voice and broadband services. 
I appreciate your interest in this matter. Please let me know if 1 can be of any further 
assistance. 
Tom Wheeler