Quiero saber acerca de...

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 160 / Monday, August 23, 2021 / Rules and Regulations Chain Order, the Commission held that if funding is insufficient to meet total demand from a particular category, the Commission would prioritize funding for transitioning the core networks of these eligible providers before allocating funds to non-core network related expenses. Though the Commission has seen nothing in the record to convince it otherwise, and some commenters, such as Mediacom support
prioritizing core equipment over noncore equipment, the prioritization scheme in the CAA does not indicate a preference for core network equipment over non-core equipment. The CAA
paradigm only asks the Commission to first consider applications from providers with two million or fewer customers. It does not address any preference to replace certain types of covered equipment in telecommunications networks. Neither the CAA nor the Secure Networks Act provides the Commission with guidance to determine which specific communications equipment and services would comprise any core network. Thus, to ensure that reimbursement funds are distributed equitably across all applicants . . ., and to ease administrative burdens, the Commission will not prioritize core equipment over any other type of equipment. The Commission finds that discarding this sub-prioritization category will provide more clear guidance to the Reimbursement Program Fund Administrator Fund Administrator and applicants during the Reimbursement Program funding allocation process.
52. The Commission reaches the same conclusion in considering Mavenirs suggestion that the Commission prioritizes Open Radio Access Network ORAN reimbursement requests over those from carriers that choose to use traditional or proprietary RAN. Mavenir comments that the Commission should allow for a priority for ORAN
technology because such technology may be more secure than traditional network technology, may allow United States-based vendors to compete on a more level playing field with foreign counterparts, and will allow for easier and cheaper network upgrades in the future. The Commission is mindful of the potential benefits associated with a transition to more virtual networks but nevertheless decline to establish a preference for such equipment and services. The CAAs prioritization paradigm expressly provides for no such preference for ORAN or any other type of equipment or service, so the Commission similarly declines to do so.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:11 Aug 20, 2021

Jkt 253001

The Commission emphasizes that Reimbursement Program recipients may choose to replace their existing covered equipment and services with ORAN
equipment and services, and the Commission recommends that providers participating in the Reimbursement Program consider all potential vendors, including ORAN providers, before selecting their replacement equipment and services.
b. Decline To Prioritize Eligible Telecommunications Carriers 53. In the 2020 Supply Chain Order, the Commission reasoned that ETCs, who are required to remove covered equipment and services from their networks, face greater consequences than non-ETC providers so there is a greater urgency to expeditiously accommodate the transition of ETC
networks over other applicants. The Commission thus explicitly prioritized ETC applicants over non-ETC
applicants, who are not required to remove covered equipment and services unless they participate in the Reimbursement Program. However, the CAA does not indicate a preference for ETC applicants over non-ETC
applicants. Instead, it directs the Commission to prioritize smaller carriers first, then schools, health care providers, and libraries, and then larger carriers. The Commission therefore reconsiders and revises its prior prioritization scheme to remove any preference for ETC applicants for the same reasons the Commission declines to prioritize the replacement of core network equipment and services. To ensure Reimbursement Program funding is distributed equitably, and to provide clear guidance to Reimbursement Program applicants, the Commission will implement the prioritization scheme as provided by Congress in the CAA.
54. The record supports this decision.
Mediacom argues that the old preference for ETCs was inconsistent with the Secure Networks Act and contrary to the public interest.
Mediacom contends that many nonETCs made significant investments in removing and replacing their equipment and services based on the belief, supported by the Secure Networks Act, that they would be reimbursed for those costs. The Commission should not punish those providers that acted early and have been proactively attempting to comply with the statute. PTAFLA
also writes that Congress plainly did not envision ETCs receiving all or virtually all of the funds available since it stressed that funds should be made available equitably to all applicants, a
PO 00000

Frm 00053

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

47005

command that would not be heeded if non-ETCs are effectively precluded from receiving any funds. PTAFLA argues ETCs should receive funding, but not to the exclusion of other worthy recipients who have not had the advantage of receiving USF money to fund their build-outs and operations.
55. RWA contends that the CAA
does not prohibit such prioritization, and such prioritization is consistent with the CAA. RWA argues that, considering the USF constitutes the source of much of ETCs funding as opposed to non-ETCs, limiting those funds has significantly hampered the ability of many rural ETCs to maintain their networks. RWA asserts that the FCC already acknowledged the importance of ETC networks in its Second Report and Order as it agreed that ETCs should be allocated reimbursement funds first. Further, if there is not enough funding to go around initially, the Commission must prioritize, and there are substantial public interest reasons for prioritizing ETCs over non-ETCs. Non-ETCs should still be reimbursed; it may just take longer. RWA also argues that rural ETCs . . . are entirely dependent on USF program funding, in addition to business revenue from a sparse number of subscribers in high cost areas, and, unlike other carriers with access to additional sources of capital, a 20%
30% funding reduction would drive small and rural companies out of business.
56. The Commission acknowledges that, in the 2020 Supply Chain Order, the Commission used a similar justification to fund ETCs over nonETCs. However, the Commission adopted that priority before Congress expressly provided its own prioritization scheme, in which it explicitly adopted a scheme that does not prioritize ETCs over all providers of advanced communications services with 2 million customers or fewer. While the CAA does not explicitly prohibit the Commission from including additional sub-prioritization categories, without express direction to further subprioritize the Commission concludes that doing so would frustrate its charge, from the Secure Networks Act, to ensure that Reimbursement Program funds are equitably distributed amongst all applications. As a result, the Commission adopts the paradigm advanced by Congress and will not prioritize funding to ETCs over nonETCs. If available funding is insufficient to satisfy all requests in any individual category, the Commission will prorate the available funding equally across all requests in this category. The
E:FRFM23AUR1.SGM

23AUR1