Skip Navigation

Federal Communications Commission

English Display Options

Commission Document

Connect America Phase I Challenge Resolution Order

Download Options

Released: January 10, 2014

Federal Communications Commission

DA 14-32

Before the

Federal Communications Commission

Washington, D.C. 20554

In the Matter of
)
)

Connect America Fund
)
WC Docket No. 10-90
)

ORDER

Adopted: January 10, 2014

Released: January 10, 2014

Deadline for Acceptance of Withheld Funding: February 24, 2014

By the Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau:

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Heading
Paragraph #
I.
Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………………1
II.
Background…………………………………………………………………………………………3
III.
Discussion…………………………………………………………………………….…………….4
A. Price Cap Carrier Challenges………………………………………….…………………..……5
B. Framework for Analyzing Challenges to Price Cap Carrier Elections.……….………………...9
C. Resolution of Challenges……………………………………….………………….…………..22
D. Funding Authorizations……………………………….…………………………...…………298
IV.
Ordering Clause………………………………………………………………………..…………300

I.

INTRODUCTION

1.
In this Order, the Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau) addresses outstanding
challenges regarding the eligibility of census blocks elected by price cap carriers for the second round of
Connect America Phase I.1 Two price cap carriers challenged the designation of census blocks shown as
served on the National Broadband Map, and 82 other providers filed challenges contesting census blocks
elected by one or more of the price cap carriers. Of the 82 providers that submitted challenges, we grant
64 of those challenges and reject or dismiss 13. The remaining five challenges are granted in part and
denied in part. Of the approximately $98 million in funding that was subject to challenge, approximately
$18.7 million is now authorized for disbursement to extend broadband-capable infrastructure in 22 states.


1 The Bureau previously has issued $288 million in funding authorizations to extend broadband in 43 states and one
territory. See Over $32 Million of Connect America Funding Authorized to Connect Unserved Homes and
Businesses in Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico
, WC Docket No. 10-90, Public Notice, 28 FCC Rcd 14896 (Wireline
Comp. Bur 2013); Over $255 Million of Connect America Funding Authorized to Connect Unserved Homes and
Businesses in 41 States
, WC Docket No. 10-90, Public Notice, DA 13-2329 (Wireline Comp. Bur. rel. Dec. 5,
2013).

Federal Communications Commission

DA 14-32

2.
We direct the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) to distribute funding
as described in Appendix 1 to this Order. Those price cap carriers that conditionally accepted funding in
their initial election must notify us within 45 days of the release of this Order if they wish to modify their
prior elections in light of the resolution of these challenges.2

II.

BACKGROUND

3.
In the Phase I Order, the Commission directed the Bureau to conduct a challenge
process in which parties could challenge the status of a census block as shown on the National Broadband
Map.3 The Commission adopted the challenge process to ensure that funding is not provided in areas
served by other broadband providers. The Commission set out a framework for the challenge process
whereby price cap carriers would first make their initial elections, including challenging census blocks
shown as served on the National Broadband Map that they contended were, in fact, unserved by
broadband.4 The Bureau then would publish a list of the census blocks elected by the price cap carriers.5
Interested parties, including fixed wireless broadband and cable broadband providers, were then given an
opportunity to challenge the elections made by the price cap carriers, contending that the blocks in
question were, in fact, served by fixed broadband Internet access.6 The Commission required that all
challenges, both from price cap carriers and providers, be supported by “some form of documented
evidence.”7 Following the filing of challenges to the price cap carrier elections, carriers and other
interested parties were given 30 days to respond.8 The Commission specified that that where the Bureau
finds it more likely than not that the status of a census block should be treated differently than the status
shown on the National Broadband Map, the Bureau should deem that census block as served or unserved,
as appropriate, for the purposes of Connect America Phase I.9

III.

DISCUSSION

4.
In this Order, the Bureau addresses all of the remaining requests for funding under the
second round of Connect America Phase I. First, we dismiss certain challenges filed by one price cap
carrier for lack of evidence, and grant other challenges that were unopposed. Next, we describe our
general framework for resolving the challenges made by third parties where the price cap carrier
responded, addressing several recurring arguments made by parties that are common to multiple
challenges. We then apply that general framework to the individual challenges before us and, based on
the review of the evidence for each challenge, determine in each instance whether it is more likely than


2 Connect America Fund, WC Docket No. 10-90, Report and Order, 28 FCC Rcd 7766, 7777-78, para. 31 (2013)
(Phase I Order). AT&T, Frontier, and Windstream conditioned their acceptances based on the outcome of the
challenge process. CenturyLink and FairPoint did not indicate that their elections were contingent upon the
challenge process.
3 Id. at 7776, para. 28.
4 Id. at 7777-78, paras. 29-31. For ease of reference, we refer to these challenges as price cap carrier challenges.
5 Wireline Competition Bureau Publishes Census Blocks, and Commences Challenge Process, for Second Round of
Connect America Phase I
, WC Docket No. 10-90, Public Notice, 28 FCC Rcd 12781 (Wireline Comp. Bur. 2013).
6 Phase I Order, 28 FCC Rcd at 7778, para. 32. For ease of reference, we refer to this group of challenges as
challenges to elections made by the price cap carriers.
7 Id. at 7779, para. 33.
8 Id. at 7778, para. 32.
9 Id. at 7779, para. 33.
2

Federal Communications Commission

DA 14-32

not that a block is served and therefore ineligible for Phase I funding.10 A list of the decisions on provider
challenges is available at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-325068A2.xlsx. A list
of all authorized census blocks, including those authorized in previous orders, is available at
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-325068A1.xlsx.11

A.

PRICE CAP CARRIER CHALLENGES

5.
Frontier challenges the designation of 1,195 census blocks based on various evidence,
including provider advertising materials, site surveys, and statements of potential customers.12 However,
Frontier did not supply any evidence for 376 of the challenged census blocks. As the Commission
required that all challenges be supported by documented evidence, we summarily deny the challenges for
these 376 census blocks.13
6.
For 673 of the remaining 819 census blocks, no provider responded to Frontier’s
challenge. The Bureau grants Frontier’s challenge in each census block where the challenge is not
opposed by a provider. Those unopposed census blocks will be treated as unserved for purposes of the
second round of Phase I.
7.
Windstream files challenges to 9,887 census blocks based on evidence of a lack of
porting activity. In particular, Windstream challenges census blocks for which no local telephone number
was ported from Windstream to another carrier for the 18-month period of December 1, 2011 through
May 31, 2013.14 Windstream contends that the lack of number porting indicates that no other provider is
serving that census block.


10 We note at the outset that the decisions we make in the context of the Phase I challenge process do not bind the
Commission or the Bureau in any other proceeding that may involve a challenge process, including Connect
America Phase II, the Mobility Fund, the Tribal Mobility Fund, or determining overlap with rate-of-return carriers.
We note particularly that the Bureau has already established different procedures for the Phase II challenge process.
Connect America Fund, WC Docket No. 10-90, Report and Order, 28 FCC Rcd 7211, 7212-20, paras. 4-22
(Wireline Comp. Bur. 2013) (Phase II Challenge Process Order). A decision in the Phase I challenge process that a
block is unserved does not necessarily mean that same block will be treated as unserved for purposes of Phase II.
The converse is also true: a decision in the Phase I challenge process that a block is served does not necessarily
mean that the same block will be treated as served for purposes of Phase II. At the same time, we may consider our
determinations in the Phase I challenge process when deciding what areas are eligible for Phase II support. For
example, to the extent we evaluate the evidence presented regarding a particular census block, and reach a
determination in this Order that it should be deemed served or unserved, that decision has some precedential value in
evaluating a challenge to that same block in Phase II. A party may have to introduce new evidence to overcome a
decision made in this Order.
11 Hawaiian Telecom and Puerto Rico Telephone Company did not report location counts for each census block.
Rather, these carriers determined the number of planned deployment locations at the county or municipio level and
then distributed those locations proportionally among the census blocks in that county or municipio. For
administrative simplicity, Bureau staff has rounded the census level figures to whole numbers while ensuring that,
for each carrier, the locations for all census blocks still sum to the total required number of locations.
12 Letter from Michael Golob, Senior Vice President, Engineering and Technology, Frontier Communications, to
Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, WC Docket No. 10-90 (filed Aug. 20, 2013).
13 Phase I Order, 28 FCC Rcd at 7779, para. 33 (“All filings in the challenge process, whether from a price cap
carrier or another provider, must be supported by some form of documented evidence”).
14 Windstream Election of 2013 Connect America Fund Phase I Incremental Support, WC Docket No. 10-90,
Attach. 3 (Aug. 20, 2013).
3

Federal Communications Commission

DA 14-32

8.
Multiple parties assail the validity of porting evidence as a means of determining
whether a census block is served. Some parties note that customers in a census block may receive
broadband from another provider, but not port their telephone numbers away from the incumbent.15 We
acknowledge that possibility, but also note that the Commission specifically stated that lack of porting
activity could be relevant in adjudicating challenges. We conclude that evidence showing a lack of
porting over an 18-month period is sufficient to meet the burden of production to support a challenge, and
in those instances where the challenge is not opposed, sufficient for us to conclude that it is more likely
than not that an area is unserved for the purposes of the Phase I challenge process.16 Therefore, any
challenge made by Windstream that was not opposed by a provider is hereby granted, and those census
blocks will be treated as unserved for purposes of the second round of Phase I. Providers opposed
Windstream’s election to 6,666 of the census blocks that Windstream had identified as lacking porting.
We address those challenges below.

B.

FRAMEWORK FOR ANALYZING CHALLENGES TO PRICE CAP CARRIER
ELECTIONS

9.
Based on our review of the challenges and responses filed in this proceeding, we
observe that parties have made similar arguments in many instances. We address those arguments
generally in this section in order to provide clarity as to our general approach to adjudicating the Phase I
challenges before us.17
10.
Sufficiency of Certifications. Many providers opposing particular elections made by
price cap carriers filed certifications averring that a particular census block was served. Price cap carriers
offer two arguments against many of these certifications: first, that a technical deficiency with a
certification necessarily renders it invalid, and second, that a certification on its own is not sufficient
evidence to support a challenge. We reject both of these arguments.
11.
Relying on the language contained within the Phase I Order, price cap carriers argue
that a valid certification must contain five elements in order to be considered by the Bureau. In particular,
they insist that a certification must be: (1) signed, (2) by an officer of the provider, (3) under penalty of
perjury, (4) stating that the challenger offers 3 Mbps/768 kbps broadband Internet service, and (5) for
each census block challenged.18 This format of certification is one of the types of evidence the
Commission said would be considered in the challenge process.19 While the Commission gave this as an
example of one type of persuasive evidence, it did not do so to the exclusion of all other forms of provider


15 A customer may choose to receive phone service from a mobile provider or receive a new phone number from the
provider. Alternatively, the customer may choose to receive broadband from a new provider, but continue receiving
voice service from the price cap carrier. See, e.g., Comments of the National Cable Television Association, WC
Docket No. 10-90, at 2 (filed Sept. 27, 2013).
16 While we determine that evidence of a lack of porting meets the necessary burden of production to support a
challenge, as demonstrated in the challenges resolved below, we assign very little comparative weight to the porting
analysis. In almost every instance, a provider that responded to Windstream’s porting evidence with some evidence
of its own was able to carry the burden of persuasion that we should designate a census block as served.
17 The arguments raised in this proceeding have informed our thinking regarding how to improve the Phase II
challenge process. Based on our experience with the Phase I challenges, we may issue further guidance in advance
of the Phase II challenge process in order to provide greater clarity to all affected parties of what is expected.
18 See, e.g., CenturyLink Responses to CAF I Round 2 Challenges, WC Docket No. 10-90, at 4-5 (filed Nov. 4,
2013) (CenturyLink Reply).
19 Phase I Order, 28 FCC Rcd at 7779, para. 33.
4

Federal Communications Commission

DA 14-32

statements and certifications. The Commission never stated that only a certification meeting all these
elements was acceptable. A certification lacking one or more of these elements can still be valid
persuasive evidence.
12.
We also conclude that a certification alone is sufficient to meet the prima facie
requirement that a challenge be supported by some evidence. A certification is not a mere conclusory
assertion. A certification involves an individual making a representation to the Commission that a
statement is true, correct, and genuine to the best of his or her knowledge. Parties face criminal penalties
for knowingly and willfully making materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements or representations
in official matters before the Commission.20 When such a statement comes from a person who is in a
position to be familiar with the pertinent subject matter, such a certification carries evidentiary weight.
The certifications provided by the challengers are frequently from persons who are familiar with the
challenger’s network or are otherwise in a position to comment authoritatively on whether the challenger
serves a particular census block, whether through direct knowledge or based on representations of other
individuals within the company. Furthermore, as the term is used in this Order, a certification is generally
a statement made by a person in an official proceeding speaking to the truth of some asserted matter. The
fact that an individual makes the statement in a proceeding where false statements are subject to criminal
penalties reduces the likelihood that the statement is made falsely or frivolously.21 While a certification
accompanied by additional evidence may be more persuasive than just a certification, the Commission did
not require any specific form of evidence for the Phase I challenge process, and a certification alone is
enough to support a determination that it is more likely than not that a census block is served. If a price
cap carrier has some reason to believe that a certification is factually inaccurate, it should have submitted
such arguments in its response.
13.
Confidentiality of Information. Price cap carriers note that several providers filed
information confidentially, referenced other confidential information (such as Form 477 data), or redacted
information from their challenges.22 They argue that providers should not be allowed to base arguments
on confidential information, as doing so deprives price cap carriers an opportunity to respond effectively.
The price cap carriers suggest that the Bureau should disregard the redacted information and/or reject the
challenges outright.23
14.
Transparency is important to Commission processes, but such concerns must be
balanced against the need to protect customer privacy as well as sensitive commercial information. The
use of confidential information is not fatal to a challenge. Often the actual substance of the confidential
information is not critical to our ability to evaluate the arguments and reach a determination. For
example, some providers noted in their challenges that they served a certain number of locations in a
census block, but redacted the actual number of locations. Whether the number of locations is one, ten, or
twenty is of no consequence – when the provider argues there is some number of locations that it serves
in the census block, that is evidence potentially rendering the block ineligible for Phase I support. In
making our determinations, the Bureau has relied upon the public information that was available to price
cap carriers. Because of this, we conclude that price cap carriers were not unduly burdened by the filing
of confidential or redacted information by providers, and we refuse to invalidate any challenge on the
ground that it contained confidential information.


20 18 U.S.C. § 1001.
21 Id.
22 See, e.g., Reply of Windstream Corporation, WC Docket No. 10-90, at 21-22 (filed Nov. 4, 2013) (Windstream
Reply).
23 See Response of AT&T to Incremental Support Round 2 Challenges, WC Docket No. 10-90, at 5 (filed Nov. 4,
2013) (AT&T Reply).
5

Federal Communications Commission

DA 14-32

15.
Some parties have called for the issuance of a protective order to allow review of the
redacted information.24 We decline to issue a protective order in this matter. Issuing a protective order
and providing for yet another round of replies would introduce unnecessary delay.25 As noted above, in
many circumstances the underlying redacted information does not further inform a decision, and we
conclude that little benefit would be gained from allowing review of this information.
16.
Unserved by Broadband. In adopting the revised rules for the second round of Phase I,
the Commission concluded that “[t]o meet its Phase I service obligations, a carrier must deploy to
locations unserved by broadband.”26 In order to implement this requirement, the Bureau therefore must
determine what it means for a census block to be “unserved.”
17.
Some parties argue that providers should be required to show they have at least one
customer in the census block in question.27 The Commission did not specifically require, however, that a
provider actually have customers in a particular census block in order to preclude eligibility for funding.
Rather, the Commission spoke in terms of whether an area “lacks Internet access” of a particular speed.28
A provider could offer broadband access to consumers in a census block, but none of those consumers
choose to subscribe to the broadband service. Such a census block would still qualify as having access to
broadband even though the block contains no broadband customers. We therefore decline to require
evidence that the provider is currently serving customers in a particular census block, so long as there is
some indication that it offers service in the area and is able to provide service within a commercially
reasonable time frame. This is the general approach required for submitting data for the National
Broadband Map,29 and we follow that approach for the Phase I challenge process for administrative
simplicity. This approach ensures that Phase I funding is not provided to overbuild existing broadband
providers. It does not make sense to provide Phase I funding to extend broadband to locations that
another provider can serve in some reasonable period of time – minutes if all equipment is already in
place, or hours or days if customer premises equipment must be delivered and installed or a line must be
extended. By contrast, the mere plan to deploy to a census block at some point in the future is not
sufficient to deem the census block as served for purposes of Phase I.
18.
Windstream opposes certain challenges in which the challenger states in its
certification that it “provides” or “can provide” service at the requisite speed within a specified time
period, such as seven to ten days.30 In the absence of any prior guidance from the Commission that a
challenge must expressly state that it “offers” service, we are disinclined to read such certifications as
evincing only the technical capability to extend service to a particular location. Rather, a more natural
reading is that the party making the certification is indicating that the company currently provides service


24 See, e.g., Windstream Reply at 21-22.
25 See Letter from Stephen E. Coran, Counsel for the Wireless Internet Service Providers Association, to Marlene H.
Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, WC Docket No. 10-90, at 2 (filed Nov. 15, 2013).
26 Phase I Order, 28 FCC Rcd at 7771, para. 14.
27 See CenturyLink Reply at 7-8.
28 See Phase I Order, 28 FCC Rcd at 7771-72, para. 15 (“In addition to areas lacking 768 kbps/200 kbps Internet
access, we now expand eligibility for Phase I support to any location that lacks 3 Mbps/768 kbps Internet access”).
29 State Broadband Data and Development Grant Program, 74 Fed. Reg. 32545, 32548 (July 8, 2009) (“Broadband
service is ‘available’ to an end user at an address if a broadband service provider does, or could, within a typical
service interval (7 to 10 business days) without an extraordinary commitment of resources, provision two-way data
transmission to and from the Internet with advertised speeds of at least 768 kilobits per second (kbps) downstream
and at least 200 kbps upstream to the end user at the address”).
30 See Windstream Reply at 18-19 n.41.
6

Federal Communications Commission

DA 14-32

to customers in nearby areas and is willing to provide service to the customers in the disputed block
within a reasonable time period upon request. Given that the Commission did not specify precise
language that challengers had to use regarding service availability, we decline to deny Phase I challenges
merely because the challenger failed to specifically say that it “offers” service in the area. Accordingly,
we view such certifications as sufficient evidence to support a conclusion that the area is served for
purposes of Phase I. For purposes of Phase II, however, we caution potential challengers that they must
clearly state that they offer service to locations within the census block that is subject to challenge. A
statement that they “can provide” service will not be sufficient to establish a block is served in Phase II.
19.
Customer Location-Specific Information. We are not persuaded by the argument that
the Bureau should not consider any challenge that does not include customer location-specific
information, such as actual customer addresses or bills from customers.31 While such a submission would
provide additional evidence supporting a provider’s challenge, the Commission did not require providers
to file customer location-specific information. A provider is not required to have current customers in a
census block in order for that census block to be deemed served. It may be the case that a provider offers
service, but no residents in the census block have chosen to subscribe. It would be a waste of limited
Connect America Phase I funds to overbuild the provider’s existing network.
20.
Other Arguments. CenturyLink notes that some challengers did not identify the price
cap carrier they were challenging.32 CenturyLink requests that future challenge processes require the
challenger to identify the challenged party and note which census blocks correspond to which carrier.33
We note that these requirements are already built into the Phase II challenge process, including a
requirement to provide notice to interested parties.34
21.
Some carriers argue that we should disregard challenges based on reference to more
recent versions of the National Broadband Map.35 However, the Commission specifically stated “the
Bureau should consider any updates shown on a more recent version of the National Broadband Map
when adjudicating challenges.”36 Furthermore, as the National Broadband Map is a publicly available
resource, we do not consider consulting it to be so burdensome as to refuse to consider any reference to it.

C.

RESOLUTION OF CHALLENGES

22.
We will now address individual challenges filed by a provider contesting that the
census blocks in a price cap carrier’s elections are already served. For simplicity, we discuss the
challenges to elections by provider, even though that may involve challenges to elections made by more
than one price cap carrier.
23.
Access Cable Television. Access Cable Television files a challenge in response to eight
census blocks elected by Windstream.37 These blocks had been initially are shown as served on the
National Broadband Map, but that designation was challenged by Windstream based on evidence of a


31 See, e.g., AT&T Reply at 4.
32 CenturyLink Reply at 3-4.
33 Id. at 4.
34 Phase II Challenge Process Order, 28 FCC Rcd at 7212-20, paras. 4-22; see also FCC Form 505.
35 See, e.g., CenturyLink Reply at 4-5.
36 Phase I Order, 28 FCC Rcd at 7779, para. 32 n.67.
37 Letter from K.C. Halm, Counsel for Access Cable Television, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal
Communications Commission, WC Docket No. 10-90 (filed Sept. 27, 2013).
7

Federal Communications Commission

DA 14-32

lack of porting. In support of its challenge, Access Cable Television provides a certification from the
company president noting that the company offers fixed broadband Internet access service of at least 3
Mbps/768 kbps to current and prospective customers in the listed census blocks.38 Additionally, Access
Cable Television provides redacted addresses and geocoded coordinates of subscribers in the blocks in
question.39
24.
In reply, Windstream argues the redacted information hindered Windstream’s
independent verification of the data in question.40
25.
Consistent with the framework discussed above, we grant Access Cable Television’s
challenge in its entirety. Based on the evidence before us, we find it more likely than not that the blocks
in question are served by broadband. The challenged blocks will be treated as served for purposes of the
second round of Connect America Phase I and therefore ineligible for funding.
26.
Alenco Communications. Alenco Communication files a challenge in response to 21
census blocks elected by Windstream.41 Twelve of these blocks are shown as served on the National
Broadband Map, but that designation had been challenged by Windstream based on evidence of a lack of
porting. In support of its challenge, Alenco Communications submits a certification from the company’s
general manager that Alenco Communications “offers 3 Mbps/768 kbps or greater Internet service to
customers in the census blocks.”42
27.
In reply, Windstream argues that the certification is insufficient evidence to support the
challenge.43
28.
Consistent with the framework discussed above, we grant Alenco Communication’s
challenge in its entirety. Based on the evidence before us, we find it more likely than not that the blocks
in question are served by broadband. The challenged blocks will be treated as served for purposes of the
second round of Connect America Phase I and therefore ineligible for funding.
29.
Armstrong Utilities. Armstrong Utilities files a challenge in response to 352 census
blocks elected by Windstream (220 blocks), CenturyLink (6 blocks), and Frontier (126 blocks).44 One
hundred thirty of these blocks are shown as served on the National Broadband Map, but that designation
had been challenged by Windstream based on evidence of a lack of porting. In support of its challenge,
Armstrong Utilities submits a certification from the vice president of the company stating that the
company “offers fixed broadband Internet access service of at least 3 Mbps downstream/768 kbps


38 Id.
39 Id. at Exh. 1.
40 Windstream Reply at 24-25.
41 Letter from Gail O’Dell, Authorized Representative of Alenco Communications, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary,
Federal Communications Commission, WC Docket No. 10-90 (filed Sept. 27, 2013).
42 Id. at 2.
43 Windstream Reply at 25.
44 Letter from K.C. Halm, Counsel for Armstrong Utilities, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal
Communications Commission, WC Docket No. 10-90 (filed Sept. 26, 2013).
8

Federal Communications Commission

DA 14-32

upstream” in the census blocks at issue.45 Armstrong Utilities also submits redacted lists of homes
passed, subscriber counts, and plant count in each census block.46
30.
In reply, Windstream questions the validity of the certification and notes that the
redacted information hindered Windstream’s independent verification of the data.47 CenturyLink and
Frontier also raised issues regarding the use of confidential information.48
31.
CenturyLink also notes that the National Broadband Map does not reflect Armstrong
Utilities as providing broadband in the blocks in question.49 The fact that Armstrong Utilities is not
shown on the National Broadband Map is not determinative, however; part of the purpose of the
challenge process is to allow providers to report service where it is not accurately reflected on the map.
32.
Consistent with the framework discussed above, we grant Armstrong Utilities’
challenge in its entirety. Based on the evidence before us, we find it more likely than not that the blocks
in question are served by broadband. The challenged blocks will be treated as served for the purposes of
the second round of Connect America Phase I and therefore will be ineligible for funding.50
33.
Atlantic Broadband. Atlantic Broadband files a challenge in response to 115 blocks
elected by Windstream (51 blocks), CenturyLink (one block), Frontier (59 blocks), FairPoint (one block),
and AT&T (one block).51 Twenty-eight of these blocks are shown as served on the National Broadband
Map, but that designation had been initially challenged by Windstream based on evidence of a lack of
porting. In support of its challenge, Atlantic Broadband provided two declarations regarding the
availability of 3 Mbps/768 kbps broadband at the census blocks in question. Atlantic Broadband also
provides the redacted number of locations to which it provides service in each census block.
34.
In reply, Windstream argues the redaction of information and hindered its ability to
respond.52
35.
AT&T, CenturyLink, FairPoint, and Frontier did not respond to Atlantic Broadband’s
challenge.
36.
Consistent with the framework discussed above, we grant Atlantic Broadband’s
challenge in its entirety. Based on the evidence before us, we find it more likely than not that the blocks
in question are served by broadband. The challenged blocks will be treated as served for the purposes of
the second round of Connect America Phase I and therefore will be ineligible for funding.


45 Id. at 1.
46 Id. at Apps. A, B, and C. It appears Armstrong Utilities also intended to submit a map of network and plant
locations as Appendix D, but Bureau staff could not locate that portion of the document.
47 Windstream Reply at 25-26.
48 CenturyLink Reply at 25; Reply of Frontier, WC Docket No. 10-90, at 4 (filed Nov. 4, 2013) (Frontier Reply).
49 CenturyLink Reply at 25.
50 We note that Armstrong Utilities also filed a rebuttal to the replies of CenturyLink, Frontier, and Windstream,
Letter from K.C. Halm, Counsel for Armstrong Utilities, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications
Commission, WC Docket No. 10-90 (filed Nov. 21, 2013), which was not considered in light of our determination
above.
51 Letter from John T. Nakahata, Counsel to Atlantic Broadband Finance, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal
Communications Commission, WC Docket No. 10-90 (filed Sept. 27, 2013). Atlantic also lists two FIPS codes that
were not valid census blocks as they were not 15 digits (40019450012130 listed twice).
52 Windstream Reply at 26-27.
9

Federal Communications Commission

DA 14-32

37.
Atlantic Telecom Multimedia Consolidated. Atlantic Telecom Multimedia
Consolidated (ATMC) challenges three census blocks elected by CenturyLink.53 In support of that
challenge, ATMC provides a certification by its CEO and general manager that “the three census blocks .
. . are served by Atlantic Telecom Multimedia Consolidated, LLC with broadband Internet service having
download speeds of at least 3 Mbps and upload speeds of at least 768 kbps. In addition, ATMC currently
provides broadband Internet service to subscribers in each of these census blocks at speeds of at least 3
Mbps/768 kbps.”54 Furthermore, ATMC states that it has existing customers in each block.55
38.
In response, CenturyLink notes that ATMC provides only an officer certification and
no other evidence establishing that ATMC provides broadband in the census blocks in question.56
39.
Consistent with the framework discussed above, we grant ATMC’s challenge in its
entirety. Based on the evidence before us, we find it more likely than not that the blocks in question are
served by broadband. The challenged blocks will be treated as served for the purposes of the second
round of Connect America Phase I and therefore will be ineligible for funding.
40.
B2X Online. B2X Online challenges 30 census blocks elected by CenturyLink.57 In
support of its challenge, B2X Online submits a certification from its CEO stating that “B2X Online
provides broadband service in the areas.”58 It also provides latitude and longitude coordinates for
customers in the census blocks that are served by speeds exceeding the 3 Mbps/768 kbps standard.59
41.
In response, CenturyLink notes that B2X Online does not provide any evidence beyond
its certification of the speed of the service being provided to the customers in each challenged census
block.60
42.
Consistent with the framework discussed above, we grant B2X Online’s challenge in
its entirety. Based on the evidence before us, we find it more likely than not that the blocks in question
are served by broadband. The challenged blocks will be treated as served for the purposes of the second
round of Connect America Phase I and therefore will be ineligible for funding.
43.
BEK Communications Cooperative. BEK Communications Cooperative (BEK)
challenges seven census blocks elected by CenturyLink.61 In support of this challenge, BEK submitted an
affidavit from its CEO noting that it provides “speeds far greater than 4 Mbps downstream and 1 Mbps


53 Letter from Laura Graff, Regulatory Manager, ATMC, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications
Commission, WC Docket No. 10-90 (filed Sept. 26, 2013).
54 Id. at 3.
55 Id. at 2-3.
56 CenturyLink Reply at 11.
57 Letter from E. Warren Kane Jr., CEO, B2X Online, to the Federal Communications Commission, WC Docket No.
10-90 (filed Sept. 26, 2013).
58 Id. at 1.
59 Id. at 2-11.
60 CenturyLink Reply at 12.
61 Comments of BEK Communications Cooperative, WC Docket No. 10-90 (filed Sept. 25, 2013).
10

Federal Communications Commission

DA 14-32

upstream” in the listed census blocks.62 BEK also provides screenshots of its website showing offering of
the requisite speeds, as well as redacted customer billing statements from the census blocks at issue.63
44.
In response, CenturyLink contends that in five of the seven census blocks, BEK does
not currently serve any customers with broadband, but instead claims that it could provide service within
ten days.64 CenturyLink argues that this showing should not be sufficient to render an area ineligible for
Phase I support.
45.
Consistent with the framework discussed above, we grant BEK’s challenge in its
entirety. Based on the record before us, we find it more likely than not that the blocks in question are
served by broadband. The challenged blocks will be treated as served for the purposes of the second
round of Connect America Phase I and therefore will be ineligible for funding.
46.
Bixby Telephone Company. Bixby Telephone Company challenges two census blocks
elected by Windstream. Bixby Telephone Company is a rate-of-return carrier.65 The two census blocks
in question are split between Windstream and Bixby’s study areas. As noted in a previous Public Notice,
there is no need for rate-of-return carriers to file challenges in order to prevent the price cap carrier from
deploying in the rate-of-return carrier’s portion of a study area.66 However, the existence of a rate-of-
return carrier in a census block does not preclude the price cap carrier from deploying to locations in its
portion of the census block.
47.
Therefore, we dismiss Bixby Telephone Company’s challenge as moot. The portion of
the census blocks in Windstream’s territory will be treated as unserved for purposes of the second round
of Connect America Phase I and therefore those locations in Windstream’s study area are eligible for
funding.
48.
Blue Devil Cable. Blue Devil Cable challenges 27 census blocks that were elected by
Frontier (five blocks) and Windstream (22 blocks).67 All 27 of these census blocks are shown as served
on the National Broadband Map, but that designation had been challenged by Frontier and Windstream.
Frontier initially challenged five census blocks based on evidence that another provider, StratusWave, did
not provide sufficient speeds to meet the Commission’s broadband standards. Windstream initially
challenged 22 census blocks based on evidence of a lack of porting. In support of its challenge, Blue
Devil Cable provides a statement that it “offers a very robust 3 meg downstream and 1 meg upstream


62 Id. at 6.
63 Id. at 7-26.
64 CenturyLink Reply at 31.
65 Letter from Robert Rozell, CEO/President, Bixby Telephone Company, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal
Communications Commission, WC Docket No. 10-90 (filed Sept. 23, 2013).
66 Phase I Challenge Process Limited to Price Cap Areas, WC Docket No. 10-90, Public Notice, 28 FCC Rcd 13834
(Wireline Comp. Bur. 2013) (Split Census Block Public Notice).
67 Letter from Bob Loveridge, General Manager and Director of Operations, Blue Devil Cable TV, to the Federal
Communications Commission, WC Docket No. 10-90 (filed Sept. 17, 2013) (Blue Devil Cable Windstream
Challenge); Letter from Bob Loveridge, General Manager and Director of Operations, Blue Devil Cable TV, to the
Federal Communications Commission, WC Docket No. 10-90 (filed Sept. 19, 2013) (Blue Devil Cable Frontier
Challenge).
11

Federal Communications Commission

DA 14-32

broadband service.”68 It also submits plant maps and customer billing statements supporting these
claims.69
49.
Neither Frontier nor Windstream responds to Blue Devil Cable’s challenge.
50.
Consistent with the framework discussed above, we grant Blue Devil Cable’s challenge
in its entirety. Based on the evidence before us, we find it more likely than not that the blocks in question
are served by broadband. The challenged blocks will be treated as served for the purposes of the second
round of Connect America Phase I and therefore ineligible for funding.
51.
Blue Ridge Communications. Blue Ridge Communications challenges 24 census
blocks elected by Frontier (two blocks) and Windstream (21 blocks).70 These blocks are shown as served
on the National Broadband Map, but that designation had been challenged by Frontier and Windstream.
Frontier initially challenged the two census blocks relying on a physical inspection of telecommunications
plant visible in the area. Windstream initially challenged the 21 blocks based on evidence of a lack of
porting in the area. In support of its challenge, Blue Ridge Communications submitted a certification
from its director of operations that “Blue Ridge provides broadband service in the areas.”71 Blue Ridge
Communications also submits plant maps and addresses of customers served by broadband speeds up to
50 Mbps/5 Mbps.72
52.
Neither Frontier nor Windstream responded to Blue Ridge Communications’ challenge.
53.
Consistent with the framework discussed above, we grant Blue Ridge
Communications’ challenge in its entirety. Based on the evidence before us, we find it more likely than
not that the blocks in question are served by broadband. The challenged blocks will be treated as served
for the purposes of the second round of Connect America Phase I and therefore ineligible for funding.
54.
Bluegrass Cellular. Bluegrass Cellular challenges 555 census blocks elected by AT&T
(90 blocks) and Windstream (465 blocks).73 Three hundred forty one of these census blocks are shown as
served on the National Broadband Map, but that designation was initially challenged by Windstream
based on evidence of a lack of porting. In support of its challenge, Bluegrass Cellular submits advertising
material showing sufficient fixed broadband speed offerings,74 coverage maps,75 a declaration of the
company’s president and CEO stating that “[t]his fixed wireless service provides customers with access to
an Internet broadband service in their home with speeds at, or in excess of, 3 Mbps downlink and 768
kbps uplink,” and “Bluegrass currently offers its fixed wireless Internet service in each of the census
blocks identified,”76 along with pertinent customer billing statements.77


68 Blue Devil Cable Windstream Challenge at 1; Blue Devil Cable Frontier Challenge at 1.
69 See Blue Devil Cable Windstream Challenge at 4-87; Blue Devil Cable Frontier Challenge at 4-152.
70 Letter from Jeff Crandall, Director of Operations, Blue Ridge Communications, to the Federal Communications
Commission, WC Docket No. 10-90 (filed Sept. 25, 2013). Blue Ridge Communications also indicates that it is
challenging one census block which Frontier supposedly elected (421314002001029). While reference to this block
exists in Frontier’s initial challenge evidence, Frontier omitted this block in its list of elections.
71 Id. at 1.
72 See id.
73 Comments of Bluegrass Cellular, WC Docket No. 10-90 (filed Sept. 27, 2013) (Bluegrass Cellular Challenge).
74 Id. at Attach. A.
75 Id. at Attach C.
76 Id. at Attach. E.
12

Federal Communications Commission

DA 14-32

55.
In reply, AT&T alleges that Bluegrass Cellular merely contends that areas are
“serviceable” rather than served.78 AT&T also claims that Bluegrass Cellular did not provide billing
information for every census block contested.79 As discussed above, there is no requirement to provide a
billing statement (or even have a customer in) every challenged census block. Even if we were to
disregard Blue Grass Cellular’s billing statements, there would still be ample evidence to grant its
challenge. Lastly, AT&T argues that Blue Grass Cellular does not meet the speed requirements because it
does not make a guarantee of the speed minimum.80 We find the certification by Bluegrass Cellular’s
president and CEO to be sufficient guarantee that the speed requirement is being met.
56.
Windstream contends that Bluegrass Cellular’s reliance on centroids of census blocks
is not probative in Connect America Phase I, where locations served is the pertinent measure.81 However,
it is likely that a broadband service that is able to reach the centroid of a census block can also serve some
or all of the locations within that census block. Windstream contests the evidentiary weight of the
customer bills that Bluegrass Cellular submitted due to their redactions and the limited number of bills
submitted compared to the number of census blocks challenged.82 As discussed above, there is no
absolute requirement to have customers in a particular census block, and the billing statements provide
evidence of service being offered in the area in question.
57.
Lastly, Windstream and AT&T argue that Bluegrass Cellular is not an unsubsidized
competitor, as it stands to receive a substantial amount of federal high-cost support in the fourth quarter of
2013.83 For purposes of Phase I, however, the Commission did not state that only areas served by
unsubsidized competitors would be precluded from Phase I funding. In the first round of Phase I, rather
than focusing on whether the provider was an unsubsidized competitor, the Commission targeted support
to areas that were unserved by any fixed, terrestrial provider.84 In both the first and second rounds of
Phase I, the Commission emphasized that the status of an area as shown on the National Broadband Map
was the key factor, not the entity providing service.85 Furthermore, the Commission stated in the Phase I
(Continued from previous page)


77 Id.
78 AT&T Reply at Attach.
79 Id.
80 Id. at 5-6.
81 Windstream Reply at 28-29.
82 Id. at 29.
83 Id.; AT&T Reply at Attach.
84 See, e.g., Connect America Fund et al., WC Docket No. 10-90 et al., Report and Order, 26 FCC Rcd 17663,
17717, para. 137 (2011) (USF/ICC Transformation Order) (“CAF I incremental support is designed to provide an
immediate boost to broadband deployment in areas that are unserved by any broadband provider” (emphasis
added)). See also id. at 17720, para. 146 (requiring deployment for CAF Phase I to occur in areas “unserved by
fixed broadband”). “The term ‘unserved by fixed broadband’ for purposes of CAF Phase I includes areas not
identified by the National Broadband Map as served by at least one of the following technologies: asymmetric
xDSL, symmetric xDSL, other copper wireline; cable modem – DOCIS 3.0; cable modem – other; electric power
line; terrestrial fixed wireless – unlicensed; and terrestrial fixed wireless – license[d].” Id. at 17720, para. 146 n.231.
85 See id. at 17720, para. 146 (“support will occur in areas shown on the most current version of the National
Broadband Map as unserved by fixed broadband with a minimum speed of 768 kbps downstream and 200 kbps
upstream”); see also 47 C.F.R. § 54.312(c)(5)(i) (noting that locations to be served must be shown as unserved on
the National Broadband Map).
13

Federal Communications Commission

DA 14-32

Order that all rules from the first round of Phase I that were not explicitly altered remained in place.86
The rules for the first round of Phase I did not require an existing provider to be an unsubsidized
competitor in order to render an area ineligible for funding, and the Commission did not explicitly alter
that stance for purposes of the second round of Phase I.87 Therefore, we decline to impute such a
requirement here and instead reject Windstream’s argument.
58.
Both AT&T and Windstream contend that Bluegrass Cellular is not eligible because it
offers a mobile, rather than fixed, service.88 Windstream notes that “it appears Bluegrass Cellular offers
an option to set up a ‘private hotspot’ using a stationary modem, but not a true fixed wireless service with
a fixed antenna.”89 Bluegrass Cellular’s advertising materials clearly demonstrates that it is offering a
fixed wireless product. There is no requirement that a fixed wireless service use a permanently affixed
antenna. The USF/ICC Transformation Order states that terrestrial fixed broadband service is defined as
“one that serves end users primarily at fixed endpoints using stationary equipment, such as the modem
that connects an end user’s home router, computer, or other Internet access device to the network
.”90 To
operate, the modem in question must be connected to the power grid through a wall outlet.91 This
constrains the endpoint of the service to a particular location, thereby making it a fixed service.
59.
Consistent with the framework discussed above, we grant Bluegrass Cellular’s
challenge in its entirety. Based on the evidence before us, we find it more likely than not that the blocks
in question are served by broadband. The challenged blocks will be treated as served for the purposes of
the second round of Connect America Phase I and therefore ineligible for funding.92
60.
Boycom Cablevision. Boycom Cablevision challenges challenged 76 census blocks
that were elected by Windstream.93 Sixty nine of these blocks are shown as served on the National
Broadband Map, but that designation had been initially challenged by Windstream based on evidence of a
lack of porting. In support of its challenge, Boycom Cablevision submits a certification from its chief
operating officer noting that Boycom offers speeds of 6 Mbps/1 Mbps in the census blocks in question,94
as well as plant maps95 and customer billing records.96


86 Phase I Order, 28 FCC at 7771, para. 13 (“With the exception of the rules we explicitly change in this Order, all
the rules and requirements from the first round of Phase I apply mutatis mutandis to the second round of Phase I”).
87 Neither the text nor rules of the Phase I Order effectuate a change in the Commission’s prior decision to focus on
whether an area was served or not. See id. at 7778, para. 32 n.66; see also 47 C.F.R. § 54.312(c). Instead, the rules
for the second round of Phase I focus only on the status of an area as shown on the National Broadband Map. See
47 C.F.R. § 54.312(c)(2), (c)(5)(i), (c)(7), (c)(8).
88 AT&T Reply at 5; Windstream Reply at 27-29.
89 Windstream Reply at 28.
90 USF/ICC Transformation Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 17698-99, para. 98 (emphasis added).
91 Bluegrass Cellular Challenge at Attach. A (noting that installation process is “Step one. Plug in.” accompanied by
a picture of an electrical outlet).
92 We note that Bluegrass Cellular also filed a rebuttal to the replies of AT&T and Windstream, Letter from Todd B.
Lantor, Counsel for Bluegrass Cellular, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission,
WC Docket No. 10-90 (filed Nov. 25, 2013), which was not considered in light of our determination above.
93 Letter from Jerry Whitlow, Chief Operating Officer, Boycom Cablevision, to the Federal Communications
Commission, WC Docket No. 10-90 (filed Sept. 27, 2013).
94 Id. at 1-2.
95 See, e.g., id. at 5-13.
14

Federal Communications Commission

DA 14-32

61.
In reply, Windstream argues that the certification is invalid because it is not expressly
made under penalty of perjury.97 Windstream also notes that only a subset of the billing records reflects
subscription to broadband service, while most merely show subscription to video services.98
62.
Consistent with the framework discussed above, we grant Boycom Cablevision’s
challenge in its entirety. Based on the evidence before us, we find it more likely than not that the blocks
in question are served by broadband. The challenged blocks will be treated as served for the purposes of
the second round of Connect America Phase I and therefore ineligible for funding.99
63.
Brandenburg Telecom. Brandenburg Telecom challenges seven census blocks elected
by Windstream. Brandenburg Telecom is a rate-of-return carrier.100 The seven census blocks in question
are split between Windstream and Brandenburg Telecom’s study areas. As noted in a previous Public
Notice, there is no need for rate-of-return carriers to file challenges in order to prevent the price cap
carrier from deploying in the rate-of-return carrier’s portion of a study area.101 However, the existence of
a rate-of-return carrier in a census block does not preclude the price cap carrier from deploying to
locations in its portion of the census block.
64.
Therefore, we dismiss Brandenburg Telecom’s challenge as moot. The portion of the
census blocks in Windstream’s territory will be treated as unserved for purposes of the second round of
Connect America Phase I and therefore locations in Windstream’s study area are eligible for funding.
65.
Bristol Virginia Utilities Board. The Bristol Virginia Utilities Board (BVU) challenges
two census blocks that were elected by CenturyLink.102 In support if its challenge, BVU submits a
certification by its executive vice president and chief financial officer noting that the census blocks in
question “received funding under the Broadband Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP) and the
project will eventually provide fixed Internet access with speeds of 3 Mbps/768 kbps or higher.”
66.
In response, CenturyLink argues that the only evidence BVU provides in support of its
challenge is a certification.103 As discussed above, a certification is sufficient evidence to support a
challenge. CenturyLink also contends that BVU has not provided details of its project or what locations
would be served.104 We reject this argument on two grounds. First, by its challenge, BVU has informed
(Continued from previous page)


96 See, e.g., id. at 14-19.
97 Windstream Reply at 30.
98 Id.
99 We note that Boycom Cablevision filed a rebuttal to the reply of Windstream. Letter from Jerry Whitlow, Chief
Operating Officer, Boycom Cablevision, to the Federal Communications Commission, WC Docket No. 10-90 (filed
Nov. 11, 2013). We need not consider the rebuttal, given our review of Boycom’s challenge and Windstream’s
response.
100 Letter from Allison Willougby, General Manager, Brandenburg Telecom, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary,
Federal Communications Commission, WC Docket No. 10-90 (filed Sept. 27, 2013). Brandenburg Telecom alleges
that one of the census blocks falls entirely within its territory. Id. at 1. We reiterate that a price cap carrier may only
conduct Phase I deployments in its own study areas. If the census block is, in fact, entirely within Brandenburg
Telecom’s territory, Windstream cannot deploy there using Phase I funding.
101 Split Census Block Public Notice, 28 FCC Rcd at 13834.
102 Letter from Stacey Pomrenke, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, BVU, to Marlene H.
Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, WC Docket No. 10-90 (filed Sept. 27, 2013).
103 CenturyLink Reply at 12-13.
104 Id. at 12.
15

Federal Communications Commission

DA 14-32

CenturyLink that it will serve locations in the census blocks in question. Second, if even a single location
is served, the census blocks would be considered served for purposes of Phase I, so the exact locations are
not necessary to making a determination that a census block is served.105 CenturyLink also argues that it
has already certified that it undertook due diligence to determine if areas were served by BTOP projects,
and thus the fact that BVU now raises a BTOP issue should not have any effect.106 We are not persuaded.
The Commission specifically directed the Bureau to ensure that funding is not provided to census blocks
containing a BTOP or BIP project, and we cannot ignore the certification provided by BVU in the
challenge process.107 If we were to accept CenturyLink’s argument, it would eviscerate the entire
challenge process.
67.
Consistent with the framework discussed above, we grant BVU’s challenge in its
entirety. Based on the evidence before us, we find it more likely than not that the blocks in question will
be served through a BTOP project. The challenged blocks will be treated as served and therefore are
ineligible for funding.
68.
Cable One. Cable One challenges 237 census blocks elected by AT&T (11 blocks),
CenturyLink (50 blocks), Frontier (2 blocks), and Windstream (174 blocks).108 One hundred sixty six of
these blocks are shown as served on the National Broadband Map, but that designation had been initially
challenged by Windstream based on evidence of a lack of porting. In support of its challenge, Cable One
submits a certification from the vice president of its central division, noting that “[i]n each and everyone
one of these blocks, Cable One advertises, passes homes/addresses, and is capable and providing and/or
ready to provide commercial Internet access service at a speed of up to 50 Mbps downstream and 2 Mbps
upstream.”109 Connected Nation verifies that for areas in Texas, Cable One is shown in the most recent
National Broadband Map submissions as offering the requisite speeds in all but one of the census
blocks.110
69.
In response, AT&T argues that the certification is not expressly from an officer of the
company, and that the certification uses terms of potential service rather than expressly stating that the
census blocks are served.111 AT&T also notes that customer bills and/or addresses were not provided for
each block in question.
70.
CenturyLink responds to Cable One’s challenge noting that Cable One only provides a
certification.112 CenturyLink argues that the certification alone is not sufficient evidence to support the
challenge.113


105 A single location renders a census block served with some exceptions, such as large census blocks where the
National Broadband Map displays service by road segment. See National Broadband Map – Technical Overview –
Assembling the Data, National Telecommunications and Information Administration,
http://www.broadbandmap.gov/about/technical-overview/assembling-the-data (last visited Jan. 6, 2014).
106 CenturyLink Reply at 13.
107 Phase I Order, 28 FCC Rcd at 7774, para. 20.
108 Comments of Cable One, WC Docket No. 10-90 (filed Sept. 27, 2013).
109 Id. at 3.
110 Reply of Connected Nation, WC Docket No. 10-90, at 5 (filed Nov. 4, 2013) (Connected Nation Reply).
111 AT&T Reply at Attach.
112 CenturyLink Reply at 32.
113 Id.
16

Federal Communications Commission

DA 14-32

71.
Windstream argues that because Cable One’s certification is not explicitly from an
officer of the company, it should be disregarded.114 Windstream also argues that Cable One provided no
other evidence of its service.115
72.
Frontier did not respond to Cable One’s challenge.
73.
Consistent with the framework discussed above, we grant Cable One’s challenge in its
entirety. Based on the evidence before us, we find it more likely than not that the blocks in question are
served by broadband. The challenged blocks will be treated as served for the purposes of the second
round of Connect America Phase I and therefore ineligible for funding.
74.
Cablevision Systems. Cablevision Systems challenges one census block elected by
FairPoint.116 In support of its challenge, Cablevision Systems provides a certification from vice president
of business planning and regulatory product management averring that Cablevisions Systems “offers
broadband service with speeds exceeding 3 Mbps downstream and 768 kbps upstream” in the block in
question.117 Cablevision Systems also provides a redacted list of addresses for customers it serves in the
block in question,118 screenshots of the national and New York broadband maps,119 and redacted Form
477 data showing reporting for the block in question.120
75.
FairPoint does not respond to Cablevision Systems’ challenge.
76.
Consistent with the framework discussed above, we grant Cablevision Systems’
challenge in its entirety. Based on the evidence before us, we find it more likely than not that the block in
question is served by broadband. The challenged block will be treated as served for the purposes of the
second round of Connect America Phase I and therefore ineligible for funding.
77.
Charter Communications. Charter Communications challenges 1,497 census blocks
elected by AT&T (two blocks), CenturyLink (289 blocks), Frontier (one block), and Windstream (1,205
blocks).121 One thousand one hundred fifty seven of these blocks are shown as served on the National
Broadband Map, but that designation had been initially challenged by Windstream based on evidence of a
lack of porting. In support of its challenge, Charter Communications submits a certification from its
senior vice president for network operations noting that Charter Communications “offers and provides
fixed broadband Internet access service of at least 3 Mbps downstream/768 kbps upstream to multiple
current and prospective customers in each census block.”122 Charter Communications also submits a
redacted list of the number of homes it serves or passes in each census block at issue.123


114 Windstream Reply at 31.
115 Id. at 31-32.
116 Letter from Ernest C. Cooper, Counsel for Cablevision Systems Corp., to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal
Communications Commission, WC Docket No. 10-90 (filed Sept. 27, 2013).
117 Id. at Exh. A-1.
118 Id. at Exh. A-2.
119 Id. at Exhs. B, C.
120 Id. at Exh. D.
121 Letter from K.C. Halm, Counsel for Charter Communications, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal
Communications Commission, WC Docket No. 10-90 (filed Sept. 27, 2013).
122 Id. at Attach.
123 Id. at App. B.
17

Federal Communications Commission

DA 14-32

78.
In response, AT&T argues that the certification is not explicitly from an officer of the
company, that the certification uses terminology that does not expressly state that the census blocks are
served rather than serviceable, and that any information regarding locations in each census block is
redacted.124
79.
In response, CenturyLink argues that Charter Communication’s certification should not
be considered sufficient to support its challenge, noting that the only other evidence offered (the list of
addresses) was submitted confidentially.125 CenturyLink also contends that Charter Communications is
not clear as to whether the locations in question are served or are merely serviceable.126
80.
Windstream argues that Charter Communication’s certification is not technically valid
as it was not explicitly from an officer of the company,127 that the list of homes has been improperly
redacted,128 and that Charter Communications has no other evidence to support its challenge.129
81.
Windstream also offers two other sets of evidence. Windstream entered a list of all
postal service certified addresses for certain census blocks into Charter Communications’ website to
request service.130 This analysis resulted in 143 census blocks in which all addresses were met with a
response that service was unavailable, and 80 blocks in which addresses were met with a message that
service was available, but that the user needed to deal directly with a customer service representative to
receive service.131 We conclude that for those blocks where Charter Communications’ website indicated
service is unavailable, the block should be treated as unserved. Windstream’s evidence outweighs
Charter Communications’ certification. A consumer living in one of these census blocks would likely
conclude that broadband was not available from Charter Communications after visiting Charter
Communications’ website. However, for the 80 census blocks in which the user is told to contact
customer service, we conclude that that the block should be treated as served. The message received by
the user states that service is available; the fact that the user must take an additional step to receive service
does not mean that the census block in question is unserved.
82.
Frontier did not respond to Charter Communications’ challenge.
83.
Consistent with the framework discussed above, we grant Charter Communications’
challenge except for the 143 census blocks identified by Windstream as showing no service availability
on Charter’s website. For the remaining 1,354 census blocks, based on the evidence before us, we find it
more likely than not that the blocks in question are served by broadband. These challenged blocks will be
treated as served for the purposes of the second round of Connect America Phase I and therefore
ineligible for funding.


124 AT&T Reply at Attach.
125 CenturyLink Reply at 26-27.
126 Id.
127 Windstream Reply at 32.
128 Id. at 34-35.
129 Id. at 35.
130 Id. at 32-33.
131 Id. at 33. Windstream’s reply notes that there are 142 census blocks in which the website indicated service was
unavailable. However, Attachment 3 to Windstream’s filing (listing the census blocks in question) lists 143 census
blocks for Charter Communications.
18

Federal Communications Commission

DA 14-32

84.
For the 143 census blocks identified by Windstream as showing no service availability
on the Charter website, based on the evidence before us, we conclude it is more likely than not that the
census blocks are unserved by Charter Communications. Because 30 of those blocks are served by other
providers, however, only 113 of these blocks will be treated as unserved for the purposes of the second
round of Phase I and therefore eligible for funding.132
85.
Comcast Corporation. Comcast Corporation (Comcast) challenges 2,217 census
blocks elected by AT&T (179 blocks), CenturyLink (268 blocks), FairPoint (28 blocks), Frontier (473
blocks), and Windstream (1,269 blocks).133 One thousand eight of these blocks are shown as served on
the National Broadband Map, but that designation was challenged by Windstream and Frontier.
Windstream had initially challenged 961 of these blocks based on evidence of a lack of porting. Frontier
had initially challenged 47 of these blocks, but had lodged its challenge against a different provider:
StratusWave. In support of its challenge, Comcast provides a description of how its outside consultant
determined which census blocks were served.134 Comcast’s submission avers that it serves the census
blocks in question, and that submission is backed by a certification from the company’s executive director
for government affairs.135 Comcast’s submission states “all 2,217 census blocks are areas that Comcast
currently serves . . . with speeds of at least 3 Mbps downstream and 768 kbps upstream.”136 That
statement is backed by a certification that “the information in the foregoing submission as it pertains to
Comcast is true and correct.”137 Comcast’s claims are generally supported by data provided by
Connected Nation.138
86.
In reply, AT&T argues that Comcast’s certification is not explicitly from an officer and
that it does not provide billing or address information for customers in each census block.139
87.
CenturyLink argues that it did not provide data backing it assertions other than the
accompanying certifications.140
88.
Frontier argues that its certification is insufficient and instead a mere conclusory
statement.141


132 A determination that a census block is unserved by a single provider does not necessarily mean that a census
block is completely unserved for the purposes of the second round of Connect America Phase I. For example, of the
143 census blocks that are deemed unserved by Charter Communications, we conclude based on other filings in the
challenge process that 30 of those blocks are served by another provider, including Comcast, JAB Wireless, and
Time Warner Cable. The Bureau has crosschecked unserved census blocks. In circumstances where a block is
unserved by one provider but shown as served by another provider, the census block is treated as served.
133 Letter from Mary McManus, Comcast Corp., to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications
Commission, WC Docket No. 10-90 (filed Sept. 27, 2013).
134 Id. at 29-30.
135 Id. at 1, 30.
136 Id. at 1-2.
137 Id. at 30.
138 Connected Nation Reply at 6-7.
139 AT&T Reply at Attach.
140 CenturyLink Reply at 32-34.
141 Frontier Reply at 4-6.
19

Federal Communications Commission

DA 14-32

89.
Windstream questions the validity of Comcast’s filing given what it considers to be the
lack of a clear certification from an officer of the company.142 Windstream also notes that all addresses in
222 census blocks return messages from Comcast’s website that service is not available.143 Windstream
contends that because of this flaw, Comcast’s entire challenge should be rejected.144 While we decline to
dismiss Comcast’s entire challenge, we do decide that for the 222 census blocks Windstream identified as
showing no service availability on the Comcast website, it is more likely than not that Comcast is not
offering broadband.
90.
FairPoint did not respond to Comcast’s challenge.
91.
Consistent with the framework discussed above, we grant Comcast’s challenge except
for the 222 census blocks identified by Windstream as showing no service availability on the Comcast
website. For the remaining 1,995 census blocks, based on the evidence before us, we find it more likely
than not that the blocks in question are served by broadband. These challenged blocks will be treated as
served for the purposes of the second round of Connect America Phase I and therefore ineligible for
funding. For the 222 census blocks identified by Windstream as having no service availability on
Comcast’s website, based on the evidence before us, we conclude it is more likely than not that the census
blocks are unserved by Comcast. Because nine of those blocks are served by other providers, however,
only 213 of these blocks will be treated as unserved for the purposes of the second round of Phase I and
therefore eligible for funding.145
92.
Co-Mo Comm. Co-Mo Comm, Inc. (Co-Mo Comm) challenges seven census blocks
elected by CenturyLink.146 Co-Mo Comm challenged one additional census block (291353851002045),
but no carrier elected to serve that block. In support of its challenge, Co-Mo Comm certifies that it is
currently deploying a network that will be capable of providing up to 100 Mbps/25 Mbps service in the
census blocks in question.147 Co-Mo Comm notes that construction to the locations in these census blocks
will be completed by November 30, 2013.148
93.
In reply, CenturyLink argues that that Co-Mo Comm’s certification is deficient.149 As
noted above, we find these arguments unpersuasive. CenturyLink also notes that at the time of
CenturyLink’s response, Co-Mo Comm was not currently providing service.150 Service was scheduled to
begin on November 30, 2013. Furthermore, the general manager for Co-Mo Comm has reported to
Bureau staff that the deployment of plant in these census blocks has since been completed and Co-Mo


142 Windstream Reply at 35-37.
143 Id. at 36-37.
144 Id. at 37.
145 A determination that a census block is unserved by a single provider does not necessarily mean that a census
block is completely unserved for the purposes of the second round of Connect America Phase I. See supra n.133.
Of the 222 census blocks that are deemed unserved by Comcast, we conclude based on other filings in the challenge
process that nine of those blocks are served by another provider, including Charter Communications, Planters
Communications, Bluegrass Cellular, and Atlantic Broadband.
146 Letter from Randy Klindt, General Manager, Co-Mo Comm, to the Federal Communications Commission, WC
Docket No. 10-90 (filed Sept. 27, 2013).
147 Id. at 1.
148 Id.
149 CenturyLink Reply at 34.
150 Id.
20

Federal Communications Commission

DA 14-32

Comm has begun the final step of activating individual subscribers.151 Co-Mo Comm’s deployment is not
a mere plan to provide service at some indeterminate or uncertain time in the future. Rather, major
network construction in these blocks has been completed, with service scheduled to come online in the
immediate future. Given that this Order is issued after the November 30 date given by Co-Mo Comm and
that plant deployment is already completed, we conclude that its certification is sufficient to deem these
census blocks as served.
94.
Consistent with the framework discussed above, we grant Co-Mo Comm’s challenge in
its entirety. Based on the evidence before us, we find it more likely than not that the blocks in question
are served by broadband. The challenged blocks will be treated as served for the purposes of the second
round of Connect America Phase I and therefore ineligible for funding.
95.
Comporium Companies. Fort Mill Telephone Company, Lancaster Telephone
Company, and PBT Communications (Comporium Companies) challenge eight census blocks elected by
AT&T (two blocks) and Windstream (six blocks).152 Windstream initially challenged six of these blocks
based on evidence of a lack of porting. Comporium Companies is a rate-of-return incumbent provider.153
96.
Neither AT&T nor Windstream responds to Comporium Companies’ challenge.
97.
As noted in a previous Public Notice, there is no need for rate-of-return carriers to file
challenges in order to prevent the price cap carrier from deploying in the rate-of-return carrier’s portion of
a study area.154 However, the existence of a rate-of-return carrier in a census block does not preclude the
price cap carrier from deploying to locations in its portion of the census block.
98.
Therefore, we dismiss Comporium Companies’ challenge as moot. The portion of the
census blocks in price cap carrier territories will be treated as unserved for purposes of the second round
of Connect America Phase I and therefore those locations are eligible for funding. 155
99.
ComSouth Telenet. ComSouth Telenet challenges 262 census blocks elected by
Windstream.156 One hundred sixty nine of these blocks are shown as served on the National Broadband
Map, but that designation was challenged by Windstream on the basis of evidence of a lack of porting. In
support of this challenge, ComSouth Telenet submits a certification from its chief financial officer
affirming that ComSouth Telenet “provides or can provide within 7-10 days broadband service at or
above 3 Mbps/768 kbps” in the census blocks at issue.157 ComSouth Telenet also submits billing records
for customers in the contested census blocks.158


151 See Letter from Michael J. Jacobs, Legal Advisor to the Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau – Federal
Communications Commission, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, WC Docket
No. 10-90 (filed Jan. 8, 2014) (Letter to the Record).
152 Letter from Matthew L. Dosch, Senior Vice President for External Affairs, Comporium Companies, to Marlene
H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, WC Docket No. 10-90 (filed Sept. 27, 2013).
153 Id. at Attach. A (noting that “The Comporium Companies are the incumbent providers in these census blocks”).
154 Split Census Block Public Notice, 28 FCC Rcd at 13834.
155 It is unclear from Comporium Companies’ filing whether these blocks fall entirely within Comporium
Companies’ study areas or are split between Comporium Companies’ and the price cap carriers’ study areas.
156 Letter from Scott C. Obert-Thorn, Chief Financial Officer, ComSouth Telenet, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary,
Federal Communications Commission, WC Docket No. 10-90 (filed Sept. 27, 2013) (ComSouth Telenet Challenge).
157 Id. at 2.
158 Id. at 3-84.
21

Federal Communications Commission

DA 14-32

100.
In reply, Windstream argues that ComSouth Telenet neglected to include a list of the
FIPS codes for the census blocks it was challenging.159 Windstream also challenges the sufficiency of
some of the billing statements, as not all bills reflect that service at or above 3 Mbps/768 kbps is being
purchased.160 Windstream also argues that ComSouth Telenet’s ability to provide service within seven to
ten days is not the same as a location being served.161
101.
ComSouth Telenet’s initial failure to include a list of census blocks appears to stem
from oversight, as it subsequently submitted such information into the record.162 We conclude this
procedural shortfall is not fatal to ComSouth Telenet’s challenge, however, as Windstream in fact replied
to ComSouth Telenet and has had ample time since the reply deadline to file a supplemental response.
102.
Consistent with the framework discussed above, we grant ComSouth Telenet’s
challenge in its entirety. Based on the evidence before us, we find it more likely than not that the blocks
in question are served by broadband from ComSouth Telenet. The challenged blocks will be treated as
served for the purposes of the second round of Connect America Phase I and therefore ineligible for
funding.
103.
Country Connections. Country Connections challenges 47 census blocks elected by
CenturyLink (two blocks) and Frontier (45 blocks).163 As evidence in support of its challenge, Country
Connections submits a certification from its president noting that “Country Connections offers standard
residential service levels of 4 Mbps x 1 Mbps in the list of census blocks,”164 a customer billing
statement,165 coverage maps,166 and facility site verifications.167 Connected Nation verifies that Country
Connections reports providing service in all or part of each listed census block.168
104.
Frontier had initially challenged the designation of 45 census blocks shown as served
on the National Broadband Map by Country Connections. In support it of this argument, Frontier offered
the declarations of 17 Wheelersburg, Ohio, residents noting the lack of broadband service. However,
many of the census blocks Frontier challenges fall outside of the Wheelersburg area, so the declarations
are of limited value.169 Country Connections challenged the elections for a subset of the challenged


159 Windstream Reply at 38. ComSouth Telenet’s challenge refers to the list of census blocks being included as
attachments A and B to its filing on the Commission’s Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). ComSouth
Telenet Challenge at 2. However, no such attachments were included in ComSouth Telenet’s original filing. But
see infra
n.163.
160 Windstream Reply at 38-39.
161 Id. at 38.
162 After Windstream’s reply, ComSouth Telenet’s consultant promptly realized the error and filed a copy of its
challenge including the census blocks. Letter from John Kuykendall, Vice President, JSI, to Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, WC Docket No. 10-90 (filed Nov. 6, 2013).
163 Letter from Larry Schriver, President, Country Connections, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal
Communications Commission, WC Docket No. 10-90 (filed Sept. 27, 2013) (Country Connections Challenge).
164 Id. at 1.
165 Id. at Attach. 3.
166 Id. at Attach. 4.
167 Id. at Attachs. 5-6.
168 Connected Nation Reply at 8.
169 Wheelersburg, Ohio, is located in Scioto County. Frontier also challenged census blocks in the non-adjacent
counties of Clinton, Greene, Highland, and Ross.
22

Federal Communications Commission

DA 14-32

census blocks, providing certifications, service maps, a customer bill, and information on plant and
equipment.170 Given the lack of Frontier evidence outside of the Wheelersburg area, we find in favor of
Country Connections on all census blocks that Country Connections challenged. These blocks will be
treated as served for purposes of the second round of Connect America Phase I. Frontier filed no reply to
Country Connections’ challenge.
105.
In reply, CenturyLink argues that the certification is not made under penalty of
perjury.171 As stated above, a challenger’s failure to explicitly make its filing under penalty of perjury
does not invalidate the challenge. CenturyLink also notes that the billing statement does not cover the
census blocks at issue and that there is no overlay of the census blocks at issue with Country
Connections’ coverage map.172 While it is true that the billing statement does not cover the blocks in
question, it does demonstrate that Country Connections is offering speeds of at least 4 Mbps/1 Mbps
through its fixed wireless Internet service.173 Furthermore, while Country Connections did not provide an
overlay of census blocks and coverage maps, the Bureau compared the coverage map submitted by
Country Connections with the Commission’s map of elected census blocks.174 Such a comparison
appears to show overlap. We conclude that Country Connections’ submission is sufficient to make it
more likely than not the two census blocks in question are served by broadband.
106.
Consistent with the framework discussed above, we grant Country Connections’
challenge in its entirety. Based on the evidence before us, we find it more likely than not that the blocks
in question are served by broadband. The challenged blocks will be treated as served for the purposes of
the second round of Connect America Phase I and therefore ineligible for funding.
107.
Cox Communications. Cox Communications (Cox) challenges 531 census blocks
elected by AT&T (94 blocks), CenturyLink (94 blocks), and Windstream (343 blocks).175 Three hundred
of these blocks are shown as served on the National Broadband Map, but that designation was initially
challenged by Windstream based on evidence of a lack of porting. In support of its challenge, Cox
submits several certifications.176 Connected Nation verified that the most recent National Broadband Map
data shows Cox as providing service in all but three of these census blocks in the areas where Connected
Nation collects National Broadband Map data.177
108.
In reply, AT&T argues that Cox’s certifications are not explicitly from officers of the
company, that Cox included census blocks that were serviceable rather than served, and the customer bills
or addresses were not provided for each census block.178
109.
CenturyLink and Windstream argue that Cox’s certifications do not specifically aver to
the type of service offered in each block. 179 However, each certification contains a statement of how the


170 Country Connections does not contest any census blocks in Scioto County.
171 CenturyLink Reply at 13.
172 Id.
173 Country Connections Challenge at Attach. 3.
174 See Connect America Fund Phase I Round 2, Federal Communications Commission, http://www.fcc.gov/maps/
connect-america-fund-phase-i-round-two (last visited Jan. 6, 2014).
175 Comments of Cox Communications, WC Docket No. 10-90 (filed Sept. 27, 2013) (Cox Challenge).
176 Id. at 10-14.
177 Connected Nation Reply at 8.
178 AT&T Reply at Attach.
23

Federal Communications Commission

DA 14-32

certifier was involved in the data collection process and at least one affirms that “[t]o the best of my
knowledge . . . the factual statements in the [challenge] are accurate.”180 The challenge includes a
statement that “throughout all Cox service areas, Cox offers broadband service with speeds that well
exceed 3 Mbps/1 Mbps.” Combining these two statements, Cox has, therefore, sufficiently certified that
it offers the requisite speed.
110.
Windstream also raises issues with Cox’s certifications, notably that the certification
does not expressly come from an officer of the company.181 Windstream also objects to Cox’s use of the
term “serviceable” locations rather than “served” locations.182 Windstream also argues that Cox provided
no substantive evidence, other than its certifications, to support its challenge.183
111.
Windstream also notes that it submitted every postal service certified address in 39
census blocks to Cox’s website to determine if service was available, and Cox’s website responded that
service was not available.184 For these 39 blocks, we conclude that it is more likely than not that
broadband is unavailable from Cox. Windstream argues this evidence should be enough to invalidate
Cox’s entire challenge.185 We decline to take this approach and instead focus on this evidence in the
context of determining the status of the 39 blocks in question.
112.
Therefore, we grant Cox’s challenge except for the 39 census blocks identified by
Windstream. Consistent with the framework discussed above, for the remaining 492 census blocks, based
on the evidence before us, we find it more likely than not that the blocks in question are served by
broadband. Cox clearly states that it offers broadband throughout the area. These challenged blocks will
be treated as served for the purposes of the second round of Connect America Phase I and therefore
ineligible for funding. For the 39 census blocks identified by Windstream, based on the evidence before
us, we conclude it is more likely than not that the census blocks are unserved by broadband from Cox.
Because seven of those blocks are served by other providers, however, only 32 of these blocks will be
treated as unserved for the purposes of the second round of Phase I and therefore eligible for funding.186
113.
CTC Telecom. CTC Telecom d/b/a Mosaic Telecom (CTC Telecom) challenges 168
census blocks elected by CenturyLink.187 In support of its challenge, CTC Telecom submits a
certification from its chief executive officer stating that the company is “providing high speed Internet
(Continued from previous page)


179 CenturyLink Reply at 14; Windstream Reply at 39-40.
180 See, e.g., Cox Challenge at 10.
181 Windstream Reply at 39-40.
182 Id. at 40-41.
183 Id. at 41-42.
184 Id. at 40.
185 Id.
186 A determination that a census block is unserved by a single provider does not necessarily mean that a census
block is completely unserved for the purposes of the second round of Connect America Phase I. See supra n.132.
For example, of the 39 census blocks that are deemed unserved by Cox, we conclude based on other filings in the
challenge process that seven of those blocks are served by another provider, ComSouth Telenet.
187 Letter from N. Scott Behn, Chief Executive Officer, CTC Telecom, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal
Communications Commission, WC Docket No. 10-90 (filed Sept. 27, 2013). CTC Telecom submitted 169 FIPS
codes, with one duplicate (550959601002098).
24

Federal Communications Commission

DA 14-32

access in excess of 4 Mbps downstream and 2 Mbps upstream” to customers in the contested census
blocks.188
114.
In reply, CenturyLink argues that CTC Telecom’s certification is a mere conclusory
assertion that cannot support its challenge.189
115.
Consistent with the framework discussed above, we grant CTC Telecom’s challenge in
its entirety. Based on the evidence before us, we find it more likely than not that the blocks in question
are served by broadband. The challenged blocks will be treated as served for the purposes of the second
round of Connect America Phase I and therefore ineligible for funding.
116.
Cumberland Cellular. Cumberland Cellular d/b/a Duo County Telephone (Cumberland
Cellular) challenges 57 census blocks elected by Windstream.190 Forty eight of these blocks are shown as
served on the National Broadband Map, but that designation was initially challenged by Windstream
based on evidence of a lack of porting. In support of its challenge, Cumberland Cellular submits a
certification from its chief executive officer that “it provides or can provide within 7-10 days broadband
service at or above 3 Mbps/768 kbps as a competitive local exchange carrier in the census blocks.”191
117.
In reply, Windstream argues that Cumberland provides no other evidence than its
certification.192 Consistent with the framework discussed above, we grant Cumberland Cellular’s
challenge in its entirety. Based on the evidence before us, we find it more likely than not that the blocks
in question are served by broadband. The challenged blocks will be treated as served for the purposes of
the second round of Connect America Phase I and therefore ineligible for funding.
118.
Cybernet 1. Cybernet 1 challenges 342 census blocks elected by CenturyLink.193 In
support of its challenge, Cybernet 1 submits a certification from its chief executive officer that Cybernet 1
provides broadband in the contested census blocks.194 Cybernet 1 also provides billing information for
customers in the census blocks.195
119.
In reply, CenturyLink alleges that Cybernet 1’s certification does not specifically aver
that Cybernet 1 is offering 3 Mbps/768 kbps service.196 Specifically, the challenge states “Cybernet 1
provides speeds from 1 Mbps down and 1 Mbps up to 8 Mbps and 2 Mbps up in the listed areas.”197 The


188 Id.
189 CenturyLink Reply at 37.
190 Letter from Thomas E. Preston, Chief Executive Officer, Cumberland Cellular, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary,
Federal Communications Commission (filed Sept. 27, 2013).
191 Id. at 1.
192 Windstream Reply at 43.
193 Letter from Richard E. Pedersen, Chief Executive Officer, Cybernet 1, to the Federal Communications
Commission, WC Docket No. 10-90 (filed Sept. 27, 2013) (Cybernet 1 Challenge). Cybernet 1’s list of census
blocks also includes 11 duplicates.
194 Id.
195 Id. at Attach. 3.
196 CenturyLink Reply at 15.
197 Cybernet 1 Challenge at 1.
25

Federal Communications Commission

DA 14-32

Bureau contacted Cybernet 1 and confirmed that 3 Mbps/768 kbps is offered in all the disputed census
blocks.198
120.
CenturyLink also notes that it is unclear that Cybernet 1 is providing terrestrial service
in these blocks, as Cybernet 1 also partners with a satellite provider to resell satellite broadband
services.199 However, all of Cybernet 1’s evidence relates to fixed wireless, and nothing in its submission
suggests it is including its satellite offerings.
121.
In comparing the evidence submitted by Cybernet 1 against the arguments raised by
CenturyLink, we find in favor of Cybernet 1. Therefore, we grant Cybernet 1’s challenge in its entirety.
Based on the evidence before us, we find it more likely than not that the blocks in question are served by
broadband. The challenged blocks will be treated as served for the purposes of the second round of
Connect America Phase I and therefore ineligible for funding.
122.
Desert Winds Wireless. Desert Winds Wireless challenges 41 census blocks elected by
CenturyLink.200 In support of this challenge, Desert Winds Wireless provides a map of its tower
locations, along with a statement that it currently does provide or can easily provide service to customers
in the disputed census blocks.201 Desert Winds Wireless also refers to its Form 477 data, which would
show service of customers in the disputed blocks.202
123.
In reply, CenturyLink argues that Desert Winds Wireless does not provide a
certification for its challenge.203 Furthermore, CenturyLink notes that Desert Winds Wireless does not
specify the nature or speed of the service that is offered, and that the accompanying map of tower
locations is of little value.204 Desert Winds Wireless provides merely a statement – not a certification –
that some level of service is offered. The map of tower locations would suggest that some census blocks
should be served. At least one tower appears to be located within a disputed census block. However, we
lack evidence in the record as to the range of these towers or the speed delivered by them. While Desert
Winds Wireless cites to its Form 477 data, that data is reported on a census tract rather than census block
level. Without any other supporting certification or evidence, the Form 477 data on its own is insufficient
for us to determine that the necessary speeds are being provided in the disputed census blocks. Given this
lack of evidence, we cannot conclude that it is more likely than not that the census blocks in question are
served.
124.
Therefore, we deny Desert Winds Wireless’s challenge in its entirety. Based on the
evidence before us, we do not find it more likely than not that the blocks in question are served by
broadband. The challenged blocks will be treated as unserved by Desert Winds Wireless for the purposes
of the second round of Connect America Phase I and therefore eligible for funding.
125.
Duo County Telephone Cooperative. Duo County Telephone Cooperative (Duo
County) challenges 24 census blocks elected by Windstream.205 Twenty four of these census blocks are


198 See Letter to the Record.
199 CenturyLink Reply at 15.
200 Comments of Desert Winds Wireless, WC Docket No. 10-90 (filed Sept. 26, 2013).
201 Id.
202 Id.
203 CenturyLink Reply at 16.
204 Id.
205 Letter from Thomas E. Preston, Chief Executive Officer, Duo County Telephone Cooperative, to Marlene H.
Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, WC Docket No. 10-90 (filed Sept. 27, 2013).
26

Federal Communications Commission

DA 14-32

shown as served on the National Broadband Map, but that designation was initially challenged by
Windstream based on evidence of a lack of porting. In support of its challenge, Duo County submits a
certification that “it provides or can provide within 7-10 days broadband at or above 3 Mbps download,
768 kbps upload in the census blocks.”206 Commission records show Duo County as a rate-of-return
carrier.207
126.
In reply, Windstream concedes that 20 of the census blocks are outside of its
territory.208 Windstream contends that the remaining four blocks are split between Duo County’s territory
and Windstream’s territory. As noted in a previous public notice, there is no need for rate-of-return
carriers to file challenges in order to prevent the price cap carrier from deploying in the rate-of-return
carrier’s portion of a study area.209 However, the existence of a rate-of-return carrier in a census block
does not preclude the price cap carrier from deploying to locations in its portion of the census block.
127.
Therefore, we dismiss Duo County’s challenge as moot. The 20 census blocks that
Windstream initially elected that it subsequently conceded are outside of its service territory are not
eligible for funding. A price cap carrier may only use Phase I funds within its own study areas. For the
remaining four blocks, the portion of the census blocks that are in Windstream’s territory will be treated
as unserved for purposes of the second round of Connect America Phase I and therefore the locations in
Windstream’s study area are eligible for funding.
128.
Ellijay Telephone Company. Ellijay Telephone Company challenges 14 census blocks
that were elected by Windstream.210 These census blocks are shown as served on the National Broadband
Map, but that designation was initially challenged by Windstream on the basis of a lack of porting
evidence. Ellijay Telephone Company supports its challenge with a certification from an employee
stating that the company serves the census blocks in question with high speed Internet over the
Commission’s speed threshold.211 Ellijay Telephone Company also submits plant maps and customer
billing statements.212
129.
Windstream did not reply to Ellijay Telephone Company’s filing.
130.
Therefore, we grant Ellijay Telephone Company’s challenge in its entirety. Based on
the evidence before us, we find it more likely than not that the blocks in question are served by
broadband. The challenged blocks will be treated as served for the purposes of the second round of
Connect America Phase I and therefore ineligible for funding.213


206 Id. at 1.
207 See, e.g., Wireline Competition Bureau Releases New High-Cost Loop Support Benchmarks for 2013, Public
Notice, 28 FCC Rcd 3256 (Wireline Comp. Bur. 2013) (listing Duo County Telephone Cooperative as one of the
rate-of-return carriers receiving support).
208 Windstream Reply at 42.
209 Split Census Block Public Notice, 28 FCC Rcd at 13834.
210 Comments of Ellijay Telephone Company, Docket No. 10-90 (filed Sept. 17, 2013). Ellijay Telephone Company
also challenged two census blocks that were not elected by any price cap carrier (132270504002030 and
132270504002033).
211 Id. at 1.
212 Id. at 2-157.
213 Ellijay Telephone Company is a rate-of-return carrier. However, it appears the census blocks in question are
served through its separate cable network. To the extent that these challenges are merely directed at census blocks
split between Ellijay Telephone Company’s rate-of-return study area and Windstream’s study area, and are not
(continued…)
27

Federal Communications Commission

DA 14-32

131.
Farmers Telephone Company of Riceville. Farmers Telephone Company of Riceville
(Farmers) challenges five census blocks elected by Windstream.214 These blocks are shown as served on
the National Broadband Map, but that designation was challenged by Windstream based on evidence of a
lack of porting. In support of its challenge, Farmers certifies that it is offering service at speeds of 3
Mbps/768 kbps in the blocks in question and provides plant maps showing the census blocks at issue.215
132.
Windstream did not respond to Farmers’ challenge. According to Bureau records,
Farmers is a rate-of-return carrier. As noted in a previous Public Notice, there is no need for rate-of-
return carriers to file challenges in order to prevent the price cap carrier from deploying in the rate-of-
return carrier’s portion of a study area.216 However, the existence of a rate-of-return carrier in a census
block does not preclude the price cap carrier from deploying to locations in its portion of the census
block. To the extent that the listed blocks are split between Farmers and Windstream’s territories,
Windstream may deploy to areas within its own territory.
133.
Therefore, we dismiss Farmers’ challenge as moot. The portion of the census blocks in
Windstream’s territory will be treated as unserved for purposes of the second round of Connect America
Phase I and therefore those locations are eligible for funding.
134.
Fidelity Communications. Fidelity Communications challenges 21 census blocks
elected by AT&T (13 blocks) and CenturyLink (8 blocks).217 In support of its challenge, Fidelity
provides a count of served or serviceable addresses in each census block, along with plant maps of the
census blocks at issue.218 Fidelity also submits certifications from its vice president of operations noting
that “Fidelity offers 3 Mbps/768 kbps or greater Internet access service to customers within each such
census block.”219 This certification is further supported by customer billing statements.220
135.
In reply, AT&T argues that Fidelity Communications’ certification is not explicitly
from an officer of the company.221
136.
CenturyLink raises issue with the billing statements that accompanied Fidelity
Communications’ challenge.222 CenturyLink notes that the customer addresses have been redacted from
the bills, and that not every bill reflects a customer subscribing to the necessary speed of broadband
service.223 However, Fidelity Communications did provide a ZIP+4 code for each location, which would
(Continued from previous page)


served by Ellijay Telephone Company’s cable network, Windstream is permitted to deploy in the portion of the
census blocks within its own territory.
214 Letter from Ronald J. Laudner, President and Chief Executive Officer, Farmers Telephone Company of
Riceville, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, WC Docket No. 10-90 (filed
Sept. 27, 2013).
215 Id. at 1, Attachs. 2, 3.
216 Split Census Block Public Notice, 28 FCC Rcd at 13834.
217 Letter from Carla Cooper, Director of Regulatory Affairs, Fidelity Communications, to Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, WC Docket No. 10-90 (filed Sept. 27, 2013).
218 Id. at Attach. A.
219 Id. at Attach. B.
220 Id. at Attach. C.
221 AT&T Reply at Attach.
222 CenturyLink Reply at 16-17.
223 Id. at 17.
28

Federal Communications Commission

DA 14-32

have given CenturyLink a reasonable approximation of the customer location. And in any event, the
billing statements supplemented the certification from the company’s vice president of operations that
service is offered to customers in each of the relevant census blocks.
137.
Consistent with the framework discussed above, we grant Fidelity Communications’
challenge in its entirety. Based on the evidence before us, we find it more likely than not that the blocks
in question are served by broadband. The challenged blocks will be treated as served for the purposes of
the second round of Connect America Phase I and therefore ineligible for funding.224
138.
Flint Cable Television. Flint Cable Television (Flint) challenges 19 census blocks
elected by Windstream.225 These blocks are shown as served on the National Broadband Map, but that
designation was initially challenged by Windstream based on evidence of a lack of porting. In support of
its challenge, Flint submits a certification that “it provides or can provide within 7-10 days broadband
service at or above 3 Mbps/768 kbps.”226
139.
In reply, Windstream argues that Flint’s challenge is only supported by a certification,
and that certification notes that service can be made available in seven to ten days, rather than service
being currently provided.227 Consistent with the framework discussed above, we grant Flint’s challenge
in its entirety. Based on the evidence before us, we find it more likely than not that the blocks in question
are served by broadband. The challenged blocks will be treated as served for the purposes of the second
round of Connect America Phase I and therefore ineligible for funding.
140.
Great American Broadband. Great America Broadband d/b/a OnlyInternet (Great
American) challenges 46 census blocks elected by Frontier.228 These blocks are shown as served on the
National Broadband Map, but that designation was initially challenged by Frontier based on the fact that
Great American’s advertising materials only said that it could provide download speeds “up to 3 Mbps”
and did not specify an upload speed. Great American responds with a declaration that Great American
“does, in fact, offer Internet access service at speeds of at least 3 Mbps download/768 kbps upload.”229
Great American has since updated its website to reflect this.230 Great American also provides a map of
tower locations along with a customer invoice stating that 3 Mbps/768 kbps service is being provided.231
141.
Frontier did not respond to Great American’s filing.
142.
Therefore, we grant Great American’s challenge in its entirety. Based on the evidence
before us, we find it more likely than not that the blocks in question are served by broadband. The


224 We note that Fidelity Communications filed a rebuttal to the reply of AT&T and CenturyLink, Letter from Carla
Cooper, Director of Regulatory Accounting, Fidelity Communications, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal
Communications Commission, WC Docket No. 10-90 (filed Dec. 2, 2013), which was not considered in light of our
determination above.
225 Letter from James L. Bond, President, Flint Cable Television, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal
Communications Commission, WC Docket No. 10-90 (filed Sept. 27, 2013).
226 Id. at 1.
227 Windstream Reply at 43-44.
228 Letter from Stephen E. Coran, Counsel for Great American Broadband, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal
Communications Commission, WC Docket No. 10-90 (filed Sept. 27, 2013).
229 Id. at 2.
230 Id. at Exh. A.
231 Id. at Exhs. B, C.
29

Federal Communications Commission

DA 14-32

challenged blocks will be treated as served for the purposes of the second round of Connect America
Phase I and therefore ineligible for funding.
143.
Hardy Telecommunications. Hardy Telecommunications challenges 120 census blocks
elected by Frontier.232 In support of its challenge, Hardy Telecommunications submits a certification that
“Hardy Telecommunications has been awarded funds through the BTOP and [Broadband Initiatives
Program] BIP for West Virginia to provide broadband infrastructure and service for the census blocks
listed . . . [and] Hardy Telecommunications offers broadband exceeding 3 Mbps down/768 kbps up
speeds in the census blocks listed.” Hardy Telecommunications also provides documentation of its BIP
and BTOP funding, along with a map of areas where construction is completed or ongoing.233
144.
Frontier did not respond to Hardy Telecommunications’ challenge.
145.
Therefore, we grant Hardy Telecommunications’ challenge in its entirety. Based on the
evidence before us, we find it more likely than not that the blocks in question will be served through a
BIP/BTOP project. The challenged blocks will be treated as within the service area of a BIP/BTOP
project for the purposes of the second round of Connect America Phase I and therefore ineligible for
funding.
146.
Hart Companies. Hart Telephone Company and Hart Cable (Hart Companies)
challenges Windstream’s election of 27 census blocks.234 Twenty five of these census blocks are shown
as served on the National Broadband Map, but that designation was initially challenged by Windstream
based on evidence of a lack of porting. Hart Companies certifies that it provides broadband in the census
blocks listed in its challenge.235 Hart Companies provides customer billing statements and coverage maps
in support of its challenge.236
147.
In reply, Windstream argues that for 16 of the census blocks, Hart Companies is the
rate-of-return incumbent local exchange carrier (ILEC), and the census blocks are split between the
territories of Hart Companies and Windstream.237 As we noted in a previous Public Notice, rate-of-return
carriers do not need to challenge such split census blocks merely to ensure that the price cap carrier does
not build in the rate-of-return carrier’s territory.238 The price cap carrier is free to build within its own
study area, but may not build in the rate-of-return carrier’s territory. Therefore, we dismiss Hart
Companies’ challenge to these 16 blocks as moot.
148.
For the remaining 11 census blocks, Hart Companies provides service outside of its
ILEC territory through a competitive cable affiliate.239 Windstream argues that Hart Companies does not


232 Letter from D. Scott Sherman, General Manager, Hardy Telecommunications, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary,
Federal Communications Commission, WC Docket No. 10-90 (filed Sept. 27, 2013).
233 See id. at Attachs. 2-4. While Hardy Telecommunications is an incumbent rate-of-return carrier, it also is
affiliated with a competitive broadband provider outside of its study area. Id. at 1.
234 Letter from Randy Daniel, President, Hart Companies, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal
Communications Commission, WC Docket No. 10-90 (filed Sept. 26, 2013) (Hart Companies Challenge).
235 Id. at 1-2.
236 Id. at Attach. C.
237 Windstream Reply at 44-45.
238 Split Census Block Public Notice, 28 FCC Rcd at 13834.
239 Hart Companies Challenge at 1.
30

Federal Communications Commission

DA 14-32

specify in its certification that the service in these blocks is at speeds of at least 3 Mbps/768 kbps.240
However, Hart Companies does state in the list of census blocks that “Hart Cable, Inc. already provides
broadband at or above 3 Mbps/768 kbps within these census blocks.”241 This statement, taken in
conjunction with Hart Companies certification that it is providing broadband, is sufficient for us to
conclude that the requisite speed is being met. For these 11 census blocks, we resolve the challenge in
favor of Hart Companies.
149.
Therefore, based on the evidence before us, we grant Hart Companies’ challenge for
the 11 census blocks in which its cable affiliate provides service. These census blocks will be treated as
served by broadband for the purposes of the second round of Connect America Phase I and therefore
ineligible for funding. For the remaining 16 census blocks split between Windstream and Hart
Companies’ ILEC, we dismiss Hart Companies’ challenge as moot. The portion of these census blocks in
Windstream’s territory will be treated as unserved by Hart Companies for the purposes of the second
round of Connect America Phase I and therefore the locations in Windstream’s study area are eligible for
funding.242 However, one of these blocks, 131479602003063, is served by TruVista Communications,
and thus remains ineligible for support even though we treat it as unserved by Hart Companies.
150.
Hiawatha Broadband Services. Hiawatha Broadband Services (Hiawatha) challenges
four census blocks elected by CenturyLink.243 In support of its challenge, Hiawatha submits a
certification from its chief executive officer affirming that Hiawatha “offers broadband exceeding 3 Mbps
down/768 kbps up speeds in the census blocks listed.”244
151.
In reply, CenturyLink argues that Hiawatha only submitted a certification with no other
supporting evidence.245 Consistent with the framework discussed above, we grant Hiawatha’s challenge
in its entirety. Based on the evidence before us, we find it more likely than not that the blocks in question
are served by broadband. The challenged blocks will be treated as served for the purposes of the second
round of Connect America Phase I and therefore ineligible for funding.246
152.
Hill Country Telecommunications. Hill Country Telecommunications challenges 19
census blocks elected by Windstream.247 Eighteen of these census blocks are shown as served on the
National Broadband Map, but that designation was initially challenged by Windstream based on evidence
of a lack of porting. In support of its challenge, Hill Country Telecommunications submits a certification
that Hill Country Telecommunications “does provide broadband at or above 3 Mbps/768 kbps and the


240 Windstream Reply at 44.
241 Hart Companies Challenge at Attach. A.
242 While we dismiss Hart Companies’ challenge on these blocks, Windstream is still required to only conduct Phase
I deployments within its own territory.
243 Letter from Dan Pecarina, Chief Executive Officer/President, Hiawatha Broadband Services, to Marlene H.
Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, WC Docket No. 10-90 (filed Sept. 10, 2013).
244 Id. at 1.
245 CenturyLink Reply at 17-18.
246 We note that Hiawatha filed a rebuttal to the reply of CenturyLink, Letter from Thomas Cohen, Counsel for
Hiawatha Broadband Communications, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission,
WC Docket No. 10-90 (filed Nov. 8, 2013), which was not considered in light of our determination above.
247 Letter from Delbert Wilson, Chief Executive Officer, HCTC, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal
Communications Commission, WC Docket No. 10-90 (filed Sept. 25, 2013).
31

Federal Communications Commission

DA 14-32

Company is the competitive carrier in the census block listed.”248 Hill Country Telecommunications also
provides a map of its service territory.249
153.
In reply, Windstream argues that the only evidence that Hill Country
Telecommunications offers in support of its certification is “a vague map purportedly setting out the
company’s territory.”250 However, we conclude that the certification and map are sufficient to support the
challenge.
154.
Consistent with the framework discussed above, we grant Hill Country
Telecommunications’ challenge in its entirety. Based on the evidence before us, we find it more likely
than not that the blocks in question are served by broadband. The challenged blocks will be treated as
served for the purposes of the second round of Connect America Phase I and therefore ineligible for
funding.
155.
Hill Country Telephone Cooperative. Hill Country Telephone Cooperative (HCTC)
challenges 13 census blocks elected by Windstream.251 Two of these census blocks are shown as served
on the National Broadband Map, but that designation was initially challenged by Windstream based on
evidence of a lack of porting. In support of its challenge HCTC submits a certification of service and a
map of served areas.252
156.
As noted in Windstream’s reply, HCTC is a rate-of-return incumbent carrier.253 The 13
census blocks in question are split between Windstream and HCTC’s study areas. As noted in a previous
Public Notice, there is no need for rate-of-return carriers to file challenges in order to prevent the price
cap carrier from deploying in the rate-of-return carrier’s portion of a study area.254 However, the
existence of a rate-of-return carrier in a census block does not preclude the price cap carrier from
deploying to locations in its portion of the census block.
157.
Therefore, we dismiss HCTC’s challenge as moot. The portion of these census blocks
in Windstream’s territory will be treated as unserved by HCTC for purposes of the second round of
Connect America Phase I and therefore the locations in Windstream’s study area are eligible for
funding.255 However, four of the blocks in question, while unserved by Hill Country
Telecommunications, are served by another provider, Time Warner Cable. Therefore, those four blocks
will be treated as served by broadband and thus ineligible for support for purposes of the second round of
Connect America Phase I.
158.
Huxley Communications Cooperative. Huxley Communications Cooperative (Huxley)
challenges four census blocks elected by Windstream.256 One of these blocks is shown as served on the


248 Id. at 1-2.
249 Id. at Attach. B.
250 Windstream Reply at 45-46.
251 Letter from Delbert Wilson, Chief Executive Officer, Hill Country Telephone Cooperative, to Marlene H.
Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, WC Docket No. 10-90 (filed Sept. 25, 2013).
252 Id. at 1, Attach. B.
253 Windstream Reply at 46.
254 Split Census Block Public Notice, 28 FCC Rcd at 13834.
255 While we dismiss HCTC’s challenge on these blocks, Windstream may only deploy within its own territory.
256 Comments of Huxley Communications Cooperative, WC Docket No. 10-90 (filed Sept. 25, 2013) (Huxley
Challenge).
32

Federal Communications Commission

DA 14-32

National Broadband Map, but that designation was initially challenged by Windstream based on evidence
of a lack of porting. In support of its challenge, Huxley submits an affidavit from its general manager that
it “is capable of delivering bandwidth far greater than the minimum speed of 4 Mbps/1 Mbps” in the
listed blocks.257 Huxley also provides advertising materials and billing statements supporting its
assertions.258
159.
In reply, Windstream argues that Huxley does not certify that it offers 3 Mbps/768 kbps
service in all of the relevant census blocks.259 This is directly contradicted by Huxley’s certification
stating that “Huxley Communications Cooperative’s fixed wireless broadband platform within the
Alleman, Iowa Exchange is capable of delivering bandwidth far greater than the minimum speeds of 4
Mbps/1 Mbps within the above listed blocks.”260 Windstream makes similar arguments about Huxley’s
billing statements.261 We conclude that Huxley has submitted sufficient evidence to demonstrate that it is
offering speeds of at least 3 Mbps/768 kbps in the census blocks at issue.
160.
Consistent with the framework discussed above, we grant Huxley’s challenge in its
entirety. Based on the evidence before us, we find it more likely than not that the blocks in question are
served by broadband. The challenged blocks will be treated as served for the purposes of the second
round of Connect America Phase I and therefore ineligible for funding.
161.
Inside Connect Cable. Inside Connect Cable challenges 14 census blocks elected by
Windstream.262 Windstream had initially challenged these blocks based on evidence of a lack of porting.
In support of its challenge, Inside Connect Cable submits a signed certification from its managing partner
that the company offers 3 Mbps/768 kbps fixed Internet service to customers in each of the blocks listed,
as well as customer bills identifying served customers in the listed census blocks.263
162.
Windstream did not reply to Inside Connect Cable’s challenge.
163.
Therefore, we grant Inside Connect Cable’s challenge in its entirety. Based on the
evidence before us, we find it more likely than not that the blocks in question are served by broadband.
The challenged blocks will be treated as served for the purposes of the second round of Connect America
Phase I and therefore ineligible for funding.
164.
Internet Xpress. Internet Xpress challenges 71 census blocks elected by
CenturyLink.264 In support of its challenge, Internet Xpress provides a map of the census blocks in
question and a statement that “[w]e either can easily provide service to customers in these areas or already
do.”265


257 Id. at 5.
258 Id. at Apps. B, C.
259 Windstream Reply at 46.
260 Huxley Challenge at 5.
261 Windstream Reply at 47.
262 Letter from Clay F. Manley, Managing Partner, Inside Connect Cable, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal
Communications Commission, WC Docket No. 10-90 (filed Sept. 27, 2013).
263 Id. at Exhs. B, C.
264 Comments of Internet Xpress, WC Docket No. 10-90 (filed Sept. 26, 2013).
265 Id. at 1.
33

Federal Communications Commission

DA 14-32

165.
In reply, CenturyLink argues that the challenge lacks evidence.266
166.
We deny Internet Xpress’s challenge in its entirety. Internet Xpress’ cursory statement
that service is provided is not specific as to the speed of the service offered. Given this failure to meet the
minimal requirements for a challenge, we find in favor of CenturyLink.
167.
Based on the evidence before us, we do not find it more likely than not that the blocks
in question are served by broadband. The challenged blocks will be treated as unserved by Internet
Xpress for the purposes of the second round of Connect America Phase I and therefore eligible for
funding.
168.
JAB Wireless. JAB Wireless challenges 849 census blocks elected by CenturyLink
(272 blocks), Frontier (36 blocks), and Windstream (541 blocks). 267 Two hundred seventy two of these
census blocks are shown as served on the National Broadband Map, but that designation was initially
challenged by Windstream based on evidence of a lack of porting. In support of its challenge, JAB
Wireless provides a certification from its chief development officer and director that in the census blocks
listed “JAB offers Internet access service at speeds of at least 3 Mbps download/768 kbps upload.”268
JAB Wireless also submits customer records listing addresses for customers in the challenged census
blocks.269
169.
In reply, CenturyLink argues JAB Wireless redacted the last two numbers of each
address, making it impossible to accurately map the locations to a census block.270 CenturyLink argues
that to be considered, this information should be submitted in unredacted format. CenturyLink further
argues that JAB’s claims of coverage are not reflected on the National Broadband Map.271 This claim is
supported by the submission of Connected Nation, reporting that much of JAB Wireless’s coverage is not
shown in the most recent National Broadband Map data.272 However, part of the purpose of the challenge
process is to allow provides to argue that they provide service even in areas the National Broadband Map
shows as unserved, so this lack of previous map reporting is not determinative. Finally, CenturyLink
argues that the statements of speed on JAB Wireless’s customer lists are ambiguous, and therefore we
should reject JAB Wireless’s filing for failure to state that it offers the requisite speeds.273 However, JAB
Wireless’s certification makes clear it is offering at least 3 Mbps/768 kbps. We conclude that JAB
Wireless has submitted sufficient evidence to overcome CenturyLink’s arguments.
170.
Windstream argues that it is unclear if the chief development officer is an officer of the
company, and therefore capable of making a valid certification.274 Windstream also argues that JAB
Wireless has not provided any customer billing statements to back up its list of addresses. Frontier did
not respond to JAB Wireless’s filing.


266 CenturyLink Reply at 18.
267 Letter from Stephen E. Coran, Counsel for JAB Wireless, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal
Communications Commission, WC Docket No. 10-90 (filed Sept. 27, 2013).
268 Id. at 2.
269 Id. at Exhs. A, B.
270 CenturyLink Reply at 35.
271 Id. at 35.
272 Connected Nation Reply at 10-12.
273 CenturyLink Reply at 35-36.
274 Windstream Reply at 47-48.
34

Federal Communications Commission

DA 14-32

171.
Consistent with the framework discussed above, we grant JAB Wireless’s challenge in
its entirety. Based on the evidence before us, we find it more likely than not that the blocks in question
are served by broadband. The challenged blocks will be treated as served for the purposes of the second
round of Connect America Phase I and therefore ineligible for funding.
172.
Lake Communications. Lake Communications challenges 74 census blocks elected by
CenturyLink (14 blocks) and Frontier (60 blocks).275 In support of its challenge, Lake Communications
submits a certification from its chief executive officer and from the Lake County administrator affirming
that the census blocks in question are part of the Lake County BIP Project.276
173.
In reply, CenturyLink argues that Lake Communications did not provide any evidence
supporting its certification.277 CenturyLink argues that the certification is a conclusory assertion, and thus
Lake Communications’ challenge is not supported by evidence.278 Frontier did not respond to Lake
Communications’ challenge.
174.
Consistent with the framework discussed above, we grant Lake Communications’
challenge in its entirety. Based on the evidence before us, we find it more likely than not that the blocks
in question will be served through a BIP project. The challenged blocks will be treated as within the
service area of a BIP project for the purposes of the second round of Connect America Phase I and
therefore ineligible for funding.
175.
Little Apple Technologies. Little Apple Technologies challenges 70 census blocks
elected by CenturyLink.279 In support of its challenge, Little Apple Technologies submits a statement that
its Form 477 data shows subscribers meeting the minimum requirements in the census blocks in question,
and that it can produce billing statements upon request.280
176.
CenturyLink did not respond to Little Apple Technologies’ challenge.
177.
Therefore, we grant Little Apple Technologies challenge in its entirety. Based on the
evidence before us, we find it more likely than not that the blocks in question are served by broadband.
The challenged blocks will be treated as served for the purposes of the second round of Connect America
Phase I and therefore ineligible for funding.
178.
Mediacom Communications Corporation. Mediacom Communications Corporation
(Mediacom) challenges 856 census blocks elected by AT&T (26 blocks), CenturyLink (40 blocks),
Frontier (21 blocks), and Windstream (769 blocks).281 Six hundred fifty five of these blocks are shown as
served on the National Broadband Map, but that designation was initially challenged by Frontier and
Windstream. Frontier had initially challenged 13 of these census blocks based on evidence that other
providers were not offering the requisite service; however, none of these challenges appear to relate to


275 Letter from Matthew Huddleston, Administrator, Lake County, to the Federal Communications Commission,
WC Docket No. 10-90 (filed Sept. 11, 2013).
276 Id. at 1.
277 CenturyLink Reply at 18-19.
278 Id.
279 Opposition of Paul Tackett, CEO, Little Apple Technologies, WC Docket No. 10-90 (filed Sept. 19, 2013).
280 Id.
281 Comments of Mediacom, WC Docket No. 10-90 (filed Sept. 27, 2013) (Mediacom Challenge). Connected
Nation states that, for census blocks in Iowa and Minnesota, Mediacom is reporting service at or above 3 Mbps/768
kbps in all but 29 census blocks. Connected Nation Reply at 12-13.
35

Federal Communications Commission

DA 14-32

Mediacom. Windstream had initially challenged 642 of the census blocks based on evidence of a lack of
porting. In support of its challenge, Mediacom submits a declaration from its group vice president of
legal and public affairs stating that Mediacom “advertises and provides broadband Internet access service
at speeds exceeding 3 Mbps downstream and 768 kbps upstream in the census blocks at issue.”282
Mediacom also notes the number of serviceable homes it passes in each census block.283
179.
In reply, AT&T argues that the certification in question is not explicitly from an officer
and that customer bills or addresses for each census block are not provided.284 CenturyLink argues that
Mediacom has not provided sufficient evidence to support its challenge, offering only an officer
certification and no maps or customer addresses. 285
180.
Frontier argues that Mediacom has not explicitly stated that its vice president of legal
and public affairs is an officer of the company.286 Furthermore, Frontier notes that Mediacom only offers
a count of serviceable locations, rather than locations actually served.287 Frontier also notes that, in many
census blocks, Mediacom only lists a small subset of the total locations as serviceable.288 However, this
is generally sufficient to render a census block as served, both for purposes of the National Broadband
Map and for the challenge process.
181.
Windstream’s arguments are similar to those of Frontier, arguing it is unclear whether
the vice president is an officer of the company, addresses are listed as “serviceable” rather than “served,”
and often only a small subset of total locations are shown as serviceable by Mediacom. 289 Windstream
further contends that it is unclear how Mediacom developed its list of census blocks, as it may just be a
comparison to its franchise territories rather than actual deployment maps.290 However, this scenario
appears to be merely hypothetical, and Mediacom has provides a certification that it actually advertises
and provides service in the census blocks at issue.
182.
Consistent with the framework discussed above, we grant Mediacom’s challenge in its
entirety. Based on the evidence before us, we find it more likely than not that the blocks in question are
served by broadband. The challenged blocks will be treated as served for the purposes of the second
round of Connect America Phase I and therefore ineligible for support.291
183.
Merrimac Communications Ltd. Merrimac Communications Ltd. (Merrimac)
challenges one census block elected by Frontier.292 In support of its challenge, Merrimac provides an


282 Mediacom Challenge at 3.
283 Id. at Exh. A.
284 AT&T Reply at Attach.
285 CenturyLink Reply at 19.
286 Frontier Reply at 6.
287 Id.
288 Id. at 7.
289 Windstream Reply at 48-50.
290 Id. at 48-49.
291 We note that Mediacom filed a rebuttal to the replies of the price cap carriers, Letter from Craig A. Gilley,
Counsel for Mediacom, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, WC Docket No.
10-90 (filed Dec. 5, 2013), which was not considered in light of our determination above.
292 Letter from Bart Olson, President, Merrimac Communications Ltd., to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal
Communications Commission, WC Docket No. 10-90 (filed Sept. 26, 2013).
36

Federal Communications Commission

DA 14-32

officer certification that the census block in question is served with speeds of 3 Mbps/768 kbps.293
Merrimac also provides customer billing statements showing service in the block in question.294
184.
Frontier makes no reply to Merrimac’s challenge.
185.
Therefore, we grant Merrimac’s challenge in its entirety. Based on the evidence before
us, we find it more likely than not that the block in question is served by broadband. The challenged
blocks will be treated as served for the purposes of the second round of Connect America Phase I and
therefore ineligible for support.
186.
MetroCast Cablevision of New Hampshire. MetroCast Cablevision of New Hampshire
(MetroCast) challenges one census block elected by FairPoint.295 MetroCast’s vice president of system
operations certifies that the census block is served by speeds greater than 3 Mbps/768 kbps.296 MetroCast
also provides customer billing statements, plant maps, and advertising materials supporting their claim.297
187.
FairPoint did not respond to MetroCast’s filing.
188.
Therefore, we grant MetroCast’s challenge in its entirety. Based on the evidence
before us, we find it more likely than not that the block in question is served by broadband. The
challenged blocks will be treated as served for the purposes of the second round of Connect America
Phase I and therefore ineligible for support.
189.
Mi Connection. Mi Connection challenges three census blocks elected by
Windstream.298 These blocks are shown as served on the National Broadband Map, but that designation
was challenged by Windstream based on evidence of a lack of porting activity. In support of its
challenge, Mi Connection provides a certification from its chief executive officer that Mi Connection
serves the blocks in question with speeds of 3 Mbps/768 kbps.299 Mi Connection also provides partially
redacted addresses and billing statements for customers in the census blocks at issue.300
190.
Windstream does not respond to Mi Connection’s challenge.
191.
Therefore, we grant Mi Connection’s challenge in its entirety. Based on the evidence
before us, we find it more likely than not that the blocks in question are served by broadband. The
challenged blocks will be treated as served for the purposes of the second round of Connect America
Phase I and therefore ineligible for support.
192.
Midstate Communications. Midstate Communications challenges 16 census blocks
elected by CenturyLink.301 Midstate Communications submits an affidavit from its general manager


293 Id. at Exh. B.
294 Id. at Exh. C.
295 Letter from Danny L. Jobe, Vice President of System Operations, MetroCast Cablevision of New Hampshire, to
the Federal Communications Commission, WC Docket No. 10-90 (filed Sept. 27, 2013).
296 Id. at 1.
297 Id. at 2-9.
298 Letter from David Auger, Chief Executive Officer, Mi Communications, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary,
Federal Communications Commission, WC Docket No. 10-90 (filed Sept. 27, 2013).
299 Id. at Exh. B.
300 Id. at Exhs. A, C.
301 Comments of Midstate Communications, WC Docket No. 10-90 (filed Sept. 26, 2013).
37

Federal Communications Commission

DA 14-32

certifying that the “listed blocks are served with at least 4 Mbps/1 Mbps broadband service as a result of
Midstate Communications, Inc.’s stimulus project.”302 Midstate Communications also provides redacted
billing statements for customers within the disputed blocks.303
193.
In reply, CenturyLink argues that it had conducted due diligence to search for
BIP/BTOP projects.304 This is not relevant, however, given that Midstate Communications has now
completed deployment. Not only are the locations in question receiving BIP/BTOP funding, they are
actually served by 3 Mbps/768 kbps Internet access service. Therefore, CenturyLink’s argument is
insufficient to overcome Midstate Communication’s evidentiary showing. CenturyLink also notes that
the National Broadband Map shows Midstate Communications as only partially serving two of the census
blocks at issue.305 To the extent the underlying data of the National Broadband Map shows partial
coverage in those census blocks, CenturyLink may deploy to locations in the unserved areas of such
census blocks.306
194.
Therefore, we grant Midstate Communications’ challenge in its entirety. Based on the
evidence before us, we find it more likely than not that the blocks in question are served by broadband.
The challenged blocks will be treated as served for the purposes of the second round of Connect America
Phase I, and therefore are ineligible for funding.307
195.
Muenster Telephone Corporation. Muenster Telephone Corporation of Texas d/b/a
Nortex Communications (Muenster) challenges 11 census blocks elected by Windstream.308 In support of
its challenge, Muenster provides a certification from its chief financial officer certifying that Muenster
“offers 3 Mbps/768 kbps or greater Internet service to customers in the census blocks.”


302 Id. at 6.
303 Id. at App. B.
304 CenturyLink Reply at 36.
305 Id. at 36-37.
306 See Connect America et al., WC Docket No. 10-90 et al., Second Order on Reconsideration, 27 FCC Rcd 4648,
4651, paras. 10-11 (2012) (Second Order on Reconsideration). Our decision herein treats the blocks as if the
National Broadband Map showed them as served. In such circumstances, a price cap carrier can still deploy in a
census block shown as served as long as the underlying data on the National Broadband Map show unserved
locations in the census block.
307 We note that Midstate Communications filed a rebuttal to the reply of CenturyLink. Letter from Mark Benton,
General Manager, Midstate Communications, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications
Commission, WC Docket No. 10-90 (filed Nov. 12, 2013). Midstate Communications disputes CenturyLink’s
contention that two of the census blocks are only partially served; however, the current challenge process is not
designed to resolve sub-census block challenges (i.e., determining that every location in a census block is served).
For census blocks over two square miles, underlying National Broadband Map data may show some locations as
unserved. However, we remind price cap carriers that they may only deploy to locations that “to the best of the
carrier’s knowledge . . . are, in fact, unserved.” 47 C.F.R. § 54.312(c)(5)(ii). Filings by the existing provider
showing service to every location in a particular block would likely undermine a carrier’s belief that a location was,
in fact, unserved.
308 Letter from Gail Odell, Authorized Representative for Muenster Telephone Corporation of Texas, to Marlene H.
Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, WC Docket No. 10-90 (filed Sept. 27, 2013) (Muenster
Challenge). Connected Nation reports that Muenster is shown as providing service throughout two of the census
blocks and partially serving the remaining nine blocks. Connected Nation Reply at 13.
38

Federal Communications Commission

DA 14-32

196.
In reply, Windstream argues that Muenster’s certification is not sufficient evidence to
support a challenge.309 Windstream also contends that, to the extent Muenster’s challenge applies to its
rate-of-return incumbent study area, the challenge is invalid.310 We grant Muenster’s challenge in its
entirety. While Muenster operates as an incumbent local exchange carrier, it is also a fixed wireless
broadband provider.311 Bureau staff confirmed with Muenster’s representatives that the census blocks in
question are within Muenster’s wireless network, not its incumbent study area. 312 Based on the evidence
before us, we find it more likely than not that the blocks in question are served by broadband. The
challenged blocks will be treated as served for the purposes of the second round of Connect America
Phase I and therefore ineligible for funding.
197.
N.E. Colorado Cellular. N.E. Colorado Cellular d/b/a Viaero Wireless (N.E. Colorado)
challenges 108 census blocks elected by CenturyLink.313 N.E. Colorado provides a certification from its
chief technology officer stating that N.E. Colorado “is providing coverage in the census blocks listed . . .
and is capable of provisioning service in those census blocks at speed at or above 3 Mbps downlink and
768 kbps uplink.”314 N.E. Colorado also provides advertising materials, propagation maps, and customer
billing statements supporting its certification.315
198.
In reply, CenturyLink argues that the redaction of billing statements makes verification
impossible.316 CenturyLink also contends that according to the National Broadband Map, N.E. Colorado
is a mobile provider, not a fixed provider.317 However, N.E. Colorado’s advertising materials clearly
demonstrate that it offers a fixed product.318 CenturyLink notes that N.E. Colorado fails to provide a
billing statement for each block, 319 but as discussed above, there is no such requirement. Lastly,
CenturyLink argues that the maps provided by N.E. Colorado show either a lack of coverage or a lack of
customers in the highlighted census blocks.320 The lack of customers is of no consequence; as discussed
above, it is not necessary for a provider to have customers in a census block to be counted as serving that
census block. Furthermore, N.E. Colorado is not challenging every census block highlighted on the map,
and thus it is entirely plausible that some blocks would have no coverage.321 The Bureau was not able to
find a census block that N.E. Colorado challenged, but had no coverage according to the provided map.
Weighing CenturyLink’s arguments against N.E. Colorado’s evidence, we find in favor of N.E. Colorado.


309 Windstream Reply at 50.
310 Id. at 50-51.
311 Muenster Challenge at 1.
312 See Letter to the Record.
313 Comments of N.E. Colorado Cellular, WC Docket No. 10-90 (filed Sept. 27, 2013) (N.E. Colorado Challenge).
314 Id. at Attach. D.
315 Id. at Attachs. A, C.
316 CenturyLink Reply at 20.
317 Id.
318 N.E. Colorado Challenge at Attach. A.
319 CenturyLink Reply at 20.
320 Id.
321 For example, census block 080899684001349 is highlighted on the map of Otero County. However, N.E.
Colorado is not challenging that block.
39

Federal Communications Commission

DA 14-32

199.
Therefore, we grant N.E. Colorado’s challenge in its entirety. Based on the evidence
before us, we find it more likely than not that the blocks in question are served by broadband. The
challenged blocks will be treated as served for the purposes of the second round of Connect America
Phase I and therefore ineligible for support.
200.
NewWays Networking. NewWays Networking challenges 97 census blocks elected by
Frontier.322 In support of its challenge, NewWays Networking submits a certification that it is contesting
areas where it can provide speeds of at least 3 Mbps/768 kbps.323 It also provides a coverage map
showing its service area.324
201.
Frontier does not respond to NewWays Networking’s challenge.
202.
Therefore, we grant NewWays Networking’s challenge in its entirety. Based on the
evidence before us, we find it more likely than not that the blocks in question are served by broadband.
The challenged blocks will be treated as served for the purposes of the second round of Connect America
Phase I and therefore ineligible for support.
203.
North State Telephone Company. North State Telephone Company challenges one
census block elected by Windstream.325 This census block is shown as served on the National Broadband
Map, but that designation was initially challenged by Windstream based on evidence of a lack of porting.
North State is a rate-of-return incumbent local exchange carrier. It claims the census block in question
falls entirely in its service territory and thus Windstream may not deploy in the census block. As stated in
a previous public notice, a rate-of-return carrier need not file a challenge merely to affirm that the elected
census blocks are partially within its service territory.326 We reiterate that Windstream, like all other price
cap carriers, may only deploy within its own study areas. To the extent that Windstream and North State
Telephone Company disagree about the study area boundaries in the disputed census block, we decline to
address such matters in this challenge process, concluding that the appropriate venue for such disputes is
the Commission’s study area boundary data collection.
204.
Therefore, we dismiss North State Telephone Company’s challenge as moot. The
portion (if any) of the census block in Windstream’s territory would be treated as unserved by North State
Telephone Company for purposes of the second round of Connect America Phase I. However, the block
in question, while unserved by Hill Country Telecommunications, is served by another provider, Time
Warner Cable. Therefore, the block will be treated as served by broadband and thus ineligible for support
for purposes of the second round of Connect America Phase I.
205.
Northland Cable Television. Northland Cable Television (Northland) challenges 17
census blocks elected by Windstream (16 blocks) and Frontier (one block).327 Fourteen of these census


322 Letter from Scott B. Reed, Owner/Manager, NewWays Networking, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal
Communications Commission, WC Docket No. 10-90 (filed Sept. 25, 2013). NewWays Networking also challenges
four census blocks that no price cap carrier elected (181770107002047, 1816109607002009, 1816109607002008,
1816109607002011).
323 Id. at 1, 4.
324 Id. at 4.
325 Letter from James D. McCarson, Vice President of Corporate Administration, North State Telephone Company,
to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, WC Docket No. 10-90 (filed Sept. 27,
2013).
326 Split Census Block Public Notice, 28 FCC Rcd at 13834.
327 Letter from Paul Milan, Vice President and General Counsel, Northland Cable Television, to Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, WC Docket No. 10-90 (filed Sept. 25, 2013) (Paul Milan Letter);
(continued…)
40

Federal Communications Commission

DA 14-32

blocks are shown as served on the National Broadband Map, but that designation was initially challenged
by Windstream based on evidence of a lack of porting. In support of its challenge, Northland files
certifications that it offers broadband exceeding 3 Mbps/768 kbps in the census blocks at issue.328
Northland also submits redacted billing information for customers in the disputed blocks.329
206.
In reply, Windstream argues that at several points in its filing, Northland says that areas
are merely serviceable rather than currently served, and thus should not be excluded from Phase I
support.330 Windstream also argues that the redacted customer billing statements do not list the speeds
that are offered.331 We are not persuaded by Windstream’s argument that Northland characterizes areas
as “serviceable” given Northland’s certification that it offers broadband in the census blocks at issue. We
conclude that the certification’s statement that speeds at or above 3 Mbps/768 are offered is sufficient to
establish the speed requirement.
207.
Frontier did not respond to Northland’s challenge.
208.
Consistent with the framework discussed above, we grant Northland’s challenge in its
entirety. Based on the evidence before us, we find it more likely than not that the blocks in question are
served by broadband. The challenged blocks will be treated as served for the purposes of the second
round of Connect America Phase I and therefore ineligible for support.
209.
Nova Cablevision. Nova Cablevision files a challenge for a portion of its census
blocks.332 However, Nova Cablevision does not submit full 15 digit FIPS codes for the census blocks in
question, and the Bureau is unable to determine what areas are being challenged. Without such
information, the Bureau cannot process the challenge. Therefore, we reject Nova Cablevision’s
challenge.
210.
Panhandle Telephone Cooperative. Panhandle Telephone Cooperative (Panhandle)
challenges 30 census blocks elected by Windstream.333 In support of its challenge, Panhandle states in its
comments that it provides “speeds in excess of 3 Mbps/768 kbps in these census blocks,” and that
statement is supported by a declaration from the company’s chief executive officer.334 Panhandle also
submits invoices for customers in the disputed census blocks.335
(Continued from previous page)


Letter from Matt Cryan, Senior Vice President, Northland Cable Television, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary,
Federal Communications Commission, WC Docket No. 10-90 (filed Sept. 26, 2013) (Matt Cryan Letter).
Connected Nation reports that the most recent data submission shows Northland providing service in all of these
census blocks. Connected Nation Reply at 13-14.
328 Paul Milan Letter at 2; Matt Cryan Letter at 1.
329 Paul Milan Letter at 4-16.
330 Windstream Reply at 51-52.
331 Id. at 52.
332 Letter from Robert G. Fischer, President, Nova Cablevision, to the Federal Communications Commission, WC
Docket No. 10-90 (filed Sept. 23, 2013); Letter from Robert G. Fischer, President, Nova Cablevision, to the Federal
Communications Commission, WC Docket No. 10-90 (filed Sept. 27, 2013).
333 Comments of Panhandle Telephone Cooperative, WC Docket No. 10-90 (filed Sept. 27, 2013) (Panhandle
Challenge). Connected Nation reports that Panhandle’s most recent data submission shows service throughout or in
part of all of the listed census blocks. Connected Nation Reply at 14.
334 Panhandle Challenge at 1, Exh. B.
335 Id. at Exh. C.
41

Federal Communications Commission

DA 14-32

211.
In reply, Windstream argues that Panhandle does not provide sufficient evidence to
support its challenge.336 Windstream argues that, to the extent the challenge is based on National
Broadband Map data, the challenge provides no new evidence.337 However, Panhandle notes in its
challenge that the National Broadband Map understated Panhandle’s coverage, and the census blocks in
question do not currently appear as served on the National Broadband Map.338 Windstream also argues
that Panhandle only submits the billing statement for a single customer while challenging 30 census
blocks.339 However, as discussed above, there is no requirement to submit billing addresses for every
challenged census block.
212.
Consistent with the framework discussed above, we grant Panhandle’s challenge in its
entirety. Based on the evidence before us, we find it more likely than not that the blocks in question are
served by broadband. The challenged blocks will be treated as served for the purposes of the second
round of Connect America Phase I and therefore ineligible for funding.
213.
Planters Communications. Planters Communications challenges 12 census blocks
elected by Windstream.340 Six of these census blocks are shown as served on the National Broadband
Map, but that designation was initially challenged by Windstream based on evidence of a lack of porting.
In support of its challenge, Planters submits plant maps showing its equipment in the challenged census
blocks.341 Furthermore, the company’s general manager certifies that Planters Communications “provides
or can provide within 7-10 days broadband service at or above 3 Mbps/768 kbps.”342
214.
In reply, Windstream argues that Planters Communications’ claims that it can provide
service within seven to ten days are insufficient to count an area as served.343 Windstream also argues
that Planters Communications’ fails to submit evidence to support its challenge.344
215.
Consistent with the framework discussed above, we grant Planters Communications’
challenge in its entirety. Based on the evidence before us, we find it more likely than not that the blocks
in question are served by broadband. The challenged blocks will be treated as served for the purposes of
the second round of Connect America Phase I and therefore ineligible for funding.
216.
Planters Rural Telephone Cooperative. Planters Rural Telephone Cooperative
(Planters) challenges one census block elected by Windstream.345 Planters alleges the census block in
question falls entirely within its rate-of-return study area.346 As stated in a previous public notice, a rate-


336 Windstream Reply at 53.
337 Id.
338 Panhandle Challenge at 1-2.
339 Windstream Reply at 53.
340 Letter from Stephen Milner, General Manager, Planters Communications, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary,
Federal Communications Commission, WC Docket No. 10-90 (filed Sept. 27, 2013).
341 Id. at Attach. B.
342 Id. at 1.
343 Windstream Reply at 53-54.
344 Id. at 54.
345 Letter from Stephen Milner, General Manager, Planters Rural Telephone Cooperative, to Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, WC Docket No. 10-90 (filed Sept. 27, 2013).
346 Id.
42

Federal Communications Commission

DA 14-32

of-return carrier need not file a challenge merely to affirm that the elected census blocks are partially
within its service territory.347 We reiterate that Windstream, like all other price cap carriers, may only
deploy within its own study areas. To the extent that Windstream and Planters disagree about the study
area boundaries in the disputed census block, we decline to address such matters in this challenge process,
concluding that the appropriate venue for such disputes is the Commission’s study area boundary data
collection.
217.
Therefore, we dismiss Planters’ challenge as moot. The portion (if any) of the census
block in Windstream’s territory would be treated as unserved by Planters’ for purposes of the second
round of Connect America Phase I. However, the block in question, while treated as unserved by
Planters, is served by another provider, Comcast. Therefore, the block will be treated as served by
broadband and thus ineligible for support for purposes of the second round of Connect America Phase I.
218.
Public Service Wireless. Public Service Wireless challenges 15 census blocks elected
by Windstream.348 These census blocks are shown as served on the National Broadband Map, but that
designation was challenged by Windstream based on evidence of a lack of porting. Public Service
Wireless supports its challenge with a certification that “it provides or can provide within 7-10 days
broadband service at or above 3 Mbps/768 kbps” in the blocks in question.349
219.
In reply, Windstream argues that the assertion that service can be made available in
seven to ten days is not the same as currently providing service.
220.
Consistent with the framework discussed above, we grant Public Service Wireless’s
challenge in its entirety. Based on the evidence before us, we find it more likely than not that the blocks
in question are served by broadband. The challenged blocks will be treated as served for the purposes of
the second round of Connect America Phase I and therefore ineligible for support.
221.
Ritter Communications. Ritter Communications challenges four census blocks elected
by Windstream.350 Ritter Communications is filing on behalf of incumbent rate-of-return carriers.351 As
noted in a previous public notice, there is no need for rate-of-return carriers to file challenges in order to
prevent the price cap carrier from deploying in the rate-of-return carrier’s portion of a study area.352
However, the existence of a rate-of-return carrier in a census block does not preclude the price cap carrier
from deploying to locations in its portion of the census block.
222.
Therefore, we dismiss Ritter Communications’ as moot. The portion of the census
blocks in Windstream’s territory will be treated as unserved by Ritter Communications for purposes of
the second round of Connect America Phase I. However, two of the blocks in question, while treated as
unserved by Ritter Communications, are served by another provider, Cox Communications. Therefore,
those two blocks will be treated as served by broadband and thus ineligible for support for purposes of the
second round of Connect America Phase I.


347 Split Census Block Public Notice, 28 FCC Rcd at 13834.
348 Letter from E. Kelly Bond, President, Public Service Wireless, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal
Communications Commission, WC Docket No. 10-90 (filed Sept. 27, 2013).
349 Id. at 1.
350 Letter from John Strode, Vice President for External Affairs, Ritter Communications, to Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, WC Docket No. 10-90 (filed Sept. 26, 2013).
351 Id. at 1.
352 Split Census Block Public Notice, 28 FCC Rcd at 13834.
43

Federal Communications Commission

DA 14-32

223.
Rural Broadband Investments. Rural Broadband Investments d/b/a NewWave
Communications (RBI) challenges 146 census blocks elected by Frontier.353 In support of its challenge,
RBI submits a certification that it offers 3 Mbps/768 kbps Internet service to customers in the identified
census blocks.354 RBI also submits advertising materials and redacted billing statements showing
service.355
224.
Frontier did not respond to RBI’s challenge.
225.
Therefore, we grant RBI’s challenge in its entirety. Based on the evidence before us,
we find it more likely than not that the blocks in question are served by broadband. The challenged
blocks will be treated as served for the purposes of the second round of Connect America Phase I and
therefore ineligible for funding.
226.
Rural Broadband Network Services. Rural Broadband Network Services (RBNS)
challenges 12 census blocks elected by CenturyLink.356 In support of its challenge, RBNS files a
statement backed by an officer certification that it “provides fixed Internet access with speeds of at least 3
Mbps/768 kbps in the census block identified.”357 RBNS also provides tower coverage maps showing its
service area.358
227.
In reply, CenturyLink argues that RBNS’s challenge should be denied.359 CenturyLink
argues that the certification provided only attests to customers being served in one census block. While
true, the certification also affirms that “all facts set forth [in the challenge] are true,”360 and the challenge
itself states that RBNS can provide service in the census blocks in question.361 CenturyLink also argues
that the RBNS challenge states that it merely can provide service to the customers in the census blocks in
question without an extraordinary commitment of resources; RBNS does not affirmatively state that the
census blocks are served.362
228.
Consistent with the framework discussed above, we grant RBNS’s challenge in its
entirety. Based on the evidence before us, we find it more likely than not that the blocks in question are
served by broadband. The challenged blocks will be treated as served for the purposes of the second
round of Connect America Phase I and therefore ineligible for funding.
229.
San Juan Cable. San Juan Cable challenges 48 census blocks that it states were elected
by Frontier.363 Bureau records do not indicate that any of the listed census blocks were elected by


353 Comments of Rural Broadband Investments, WC Docket No. 10-90 (filed Sept. 27, 2013).
354 Id. at Exh. B.
355 Id. at Exhs. C, D.
356 Opposition of Rural Broadband Network Services, WC Docket No. 10-90 (filed Sept. 27, 2013) (RBNS
Challenge).
357 Id. at 1.
358 Id. at Attach. B.
359 CenturyLink Reply at 21.
360 RBNS Challenge at 11.
361 Id. at 1.
362 CenturyLink Reply at 21.
363 Letter from Ray Poorman, General Manager, San Juan Cable, to the Federal Communications Commission, WC
Docket No. 10-90 (Sept. 23, 2013).
44

Federal Communications Commission

DA 14-32

Frontier in the second round Connect America Phase I. As Frontier notes in its reply, these areas were
elected by Frontier in the first round of Connect America Phase I.364 The present challenge process
cannot be used to dispute areas elected to in the first round of Phase I. We therefore reject San Juan
Cable’s challenge.
230.
Santa Rosa Telephone Cooperative. Santa Rosa Telephone Cooperative (Santa Rosa)
challenges 54 census blocks elected by Windstream.365 Fifty three of these census blocks are shown as
served on the National Broadband Map, but that designation was challenged by Windstream based on
evidence of a lack of porting. In support of its challenge, Santa Rosa submits a certification that Santa
Rose “offers 3 Mbps/768 kbps or greater Internet service to customers in the census blocks.”366
231.
In reply, Windstream arguing that Santa Rosa’s certification is insufficient to support
the challenge.367 Windstream also argues that it is unclear which census blocks are part of Santa Rosa’s
incumbent rate-of-return operation (and thus not subject to challenge) and which blocks are part of
Santa’s Rosa’s competitive carrier network.368 Santa Rosa’s petition states “Santa Rosa CLEC provides
broadband service exceeding the 3 Mbps/768 kbps eligibility threshold for CAF Phase I Round 2 funding
in the aforementioned census blocks.”369 This statement is sufficiently clear that all challenged census
blocks are served by Santa Rosa’s competitive network, and thus may be challenged.
232.
Therefore, we grant Santa Rosa’s challenge in its entirety. Based on the evidence
before us, we find it more likely than not that the blocks in question are served by broadband. The
challenged blocks will be treated as served for the purposes of the second round of Connect America
Phase I and therefore ineligible for funding.
233.
Service Electric Cablevision. Service Electric Cablevision challenges two census
blocks elected by Windstream.370 These census blocks are shown as served on the National Broadband
Map, but that designation was challenged by Windstream based on evidence of a lack of porting. In
support of its challenge, Service Electric Cablevision offers a certification from its senior vice president
that “Service Electric offers 3 Mbps/768 kbps or greater Internet service to customers in the [indicated]
census blocks.”371 It also submits customer records and Form 477 data to bolster its claim.372
234.
Windstream did not respond to Service Electric Cablevision’s challenge.
235.
Therefore, we grant Service Electric Cablevision’s challenge in its entirety. Based on
the evidence before us, we find it more likely than not that the blocks in question are served by


364 Frontier Reply at 7.
365 Letter from Gail Odell, Authorized Representative, Santa Rosa Telephone Cooperative, to Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, WC Docket No. 10-90 (filed Sept. 27, 2013) (Santa Rosa
Challenge). Connected Nation reports that Santa Rosa is shown in the most recent broadband data submission as
providing service throughout the listed blocks. Connected Nation Reply at 14.
366 Santa Rosa Challenge at 2.
367 Windstream Reply at 56-57.
368 Id. at 56.
369 Santa Rosa Challenge at 1.
370 Service Electric Cablevision Opposition, WC Docket No. 10-90 (filed Sept. 24, 2013).
371 Id. at Exh. 1.
372 Id. at Exhs. 2, 3.
45

Federal Communications Commission

DA 14-32

broadband. The challenged blocks will be treated as served for the purposes of the second round of
Connect America Phase I and therefore ineligible for funding.
236.
Shenandoah Cable Television (Virginia). Shenandoah Cable Television (Shenandoah)
challenges 27 census blocks elected by CenturyLink.373 In support of its challenge, Shenandoah submits a
certification from its vice president of wireline and engineering stating that the company “offers fixed
Internet access with speeds of at least 3 Mbps/768 kbps to customers in the census blocks listed.”374
Shenandoah also submits a number of redacted customer billing statements, along with maps of the areas
it serves with high speed data.375
237.
In reply, CenturyLink argues that Shenandoah has not provided customer billing
statements for every census block.376 As discussed above, there is no requirement to provide billing
statements for every census block. CenturyLink also contends that Shenandoah’s maps show it offering
only partial coverage in some of the challenged census blocks.377 CenturyLink argues we should deny
Shenandoah’s challenge on these blocks.378 Partial coverage is sufficient to render a census block
ineligible for Phase I support.379 Therefore, we reject CenturyLink’s argument, and find in favor of
Shenandoah.
238.
Therefore, we grant Shenandoah’s challenge in its entirety. Based on the evidence
before us, we find it more likely than not that the blocks in question are served by broadband. The
challenged blocks will be treated as served for the purposes of the second round of Connect America
Phase I and therefore ineligible for funding.380
239.
Shenandoah Cable Television (West Virginia). Shenandoah Cable Television
(Shenandoah) challenges 138 census blocks elected by Frontier.381 Three of these census blocks are
shown as served on the National Broadband Map, but that designation was initially challenged by


373 Letter from Raymond B. Ostroski, Vice President and General Counsel, Shenandoah Cable Television, to
Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission (filed Sept. 27, 2013).
374 Id. at Exh. B.
375 Id. at Exh C.
376 CenturyLink Reply at 22.
377 Id.
378 Id.
379 To the extent the underlying data of the National Broadband Map shows partial coverage in those census blocks,
CenturyLink may deploy to locations in the unserved areas of such census blocks. See Second Order on
Reconsideration
, 27 FCC Rcd at 4651, paras. 10-11. Our decision herein treats the blocks as if the National
Broadband Map showed them as served. In such circumstances, a price cap carrier can still deploy in a census block
shown as served as long as the underlying data on the National Broadband Map show unserved locations in the
census block. The National Broadband Map may show a block as partially served either based on the shapefiles
submitted by wireless providers, which show only a portion of the block as covered, or for census blocks of over
two square miles, where the National Broadband Map may show certain street segments within the block as
unserved.
380 We note that Shenandoah filed a rebuttal to the replies of CenturyLink, Letter from Raymond B. Ostroski, Vice
President and General Counsel, Shenandoah Cable Television, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal
Communications Commission, WC Docket No. 10-90 (filed Nov. 22, 2013), which was not considered in light of
our determination above.
381 Letter from Raymond B. Ostroski, Vice President and General Counsel, Shenandoah Cable Television, to
Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission (filed Sept. 26, 2013).
46

Federal Communications Commission

DA 14-32

Frontier based on a different fixed wireless provider’s failure to provide adequate speeds. In support of
its challenge, Shenandoah submits a certification from its vice president of wireline and engineering
stating that the company “offers fixed Internet access with speeds of at least 3 Mbps/768 kbps to
customers in the census blocks listed.”382 Shenandoah also submits a number of redacted customer billing
statements, along with maps of the areas it services with high speed data.383
240.
As Frontier’s initial challenge did not relate to Shenandoah, it is moot. Frontier did not
respond to Shenandoah’s challenge.
241.
Therefore, we grant Shenandoah’s challenge in its entirety. Based on the evidence
before us, we find it more likely than not that the blocks in question are served by broadband. The
challenged blocks will be treated as served for the purposes of the second round of Connect America
Phase I and therefore ineligible for support.
242.
Sierra Communications. Sierra Communications challenge 53 census blocks elected
by CenturyLink.384 In support of its challenge, Sierra Communications submits a certification from its
general manager stating that “Sierra offers broadband exceeding 3 Mbps down/768 kbps up speeds in the
census blocks listed.”385 Sierra Communications also provides a map of its fixed wireless coverage along
with redacted Form 477 data.386
243.
In reply, CenturyLink argues that the challenge should be dismissed due to the
redaction of Form 477 data.387
244.
Consistent with the framework discussed above, we grant Sierra Communications’
challenge in its entirety. Based on the evidence before us, we find it more likely than not that the blocks
in question are served by broadband. The challenged blocks will be treated as served for the purposes of
the second round of Connect America Phase I and ineligible for funding.
245.
South Slope Cooperative Telephone Company. South Slope Cooperative Telephone
Company (South Slope) challenges six census blocks elected by Windstream.388 These census blocks are
shown as served on the National Broadband Map, but that designation was challenged by Windstream
based on evidence of a lack of porting. In support of its challenge, South Slope submits an affidavit from
its chief executive officer stating that its network in the challenged area is “capable of delivering
bandwidth that meets or exceed 4 Mbps downstream and 1 Mbps upstream within the . . . listed
blocks.”389 South Slope also submits advertising materials and customer billing information supporting
its challenge.390


382 Id. at Exh. B.
383 Id. at Exh C.
384 Letter from Paul Briesh, General Manager, Sierra Communications, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal
Communications Commission, WC Docket No. 10-90 (filed Sept. 27, 2013).
385 Id. at 2.
386 Id. at 5-14.
387 CenturyLink Reply at 40.
388 Comments of South Slope Cooperative Telephone Company, WC Docket No. 10-90 (filed Sept. 26, 2013)
(South Slope Challenge). Connected Nation confirms that the most recent broadband data submissions show South
Slope offering broadband in all or part of every challenged census block. Connected Nation Reply at 14-15.
389 South Slope Challenge at App. A.
390 Id. at Apps. B, C.
47

Federal Communications Commission

DA 14-32

246.
Windstream did not respond to South Slope’s challenge.
247.
Therefore, we grant South Slope’s challenge in its entirety. Based on the evidence
before us, we find it more likely than not that the blocks in question are served by broadband. The
challenged blocks will be treated as served for the purposes of the second round of Connect America
Phase I and therefore ineligible for funding.
248.
Southern Ohio Communications Services. Southern Ohio Communications Services
(SOCS) challenges 53 census blocks elected by Frontier.391 In support of its challenge, SOCS provides a
certification from its general manager that it has received BIP funding to build broadband to the indicated
census blocks.392
249.
Frontier did not respond to SOCS’s challenge.
250.
Therefore, we grant SOCS’s challenge in its entirety. Based on the evidence before us,
we find it more likely than not that the blocks in question will be served through a BIP project. The
challenged blocks will be treated as within the service area of a BIP project for the purposes of the second
round of Connect America Phase I and therefore ineligible for funding.
251.
SpeedConnect. SpeedConnect challenges 644 census blocks elected by CenturyLink
(581 blocks), Frontier (52 blocks), and Windstream (11 blocks). 393 Nine of these blocks are shown as
served on the National Broadband Map, but that designation was initially challenged by Windstream
based on evidence of a lack of porting. SpeedConnect makes a separate submission for each state it
operates in. Evidence in each submission generally includes a certification from its chief executive officer
that it provides speeds as high as 10 Mbps/1 Mbps in the areas in question.394 SpeedConnect also submits
coverage maps and advertising materials.395
252.
In reply, CenturyLink argues that SpeedConnect does not explicitly state that 3
Mbps/768 kbps is offered in every listed census block.396 Based on the evidence before us, we conclude
that it is more likely than not that such service is offered. SpeedConnect’s certification states that speeds
up to 10 Mbps/1 Mbps are offered.397 SpeedConnect’s advertising materials further state that packages
with the requisite speeds are available.398 Therefore, while SpeedConnect’s filing does not expressly state


391 Letter from Bret W. Childers, General Manager, Southern Ohio Communication Services, to the Federal
Communications Commission, WC Docket No. 10-90 (filed Sept. 27, 2013) (SOCS Challenge). Connected Nation
reports that SOCS is shown on the most recent broadband data submissions as providing 3 Mbps/768 kbps service in
all or part of each listed census block, except one (390017705001058). Connected Nation Reply at 15.
392 SOCS Challenge at 1.
393 See, e.g., Letter from John Ogren, Chief Executive Officer, SpeedConnect, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary,
Federal Communications Commission, WC Docket No. 10-90 (filed Sept. 27, 2013) (SpeedConnect Challenge).
SpeedConnect also challenges 15 census blocks that no price cap carrier elected to serve. Connected Nation notes
that SpeedConnect did not submit information in the most recent round of broadband data submissions. Connected
Nation Reply at 16-17. While we take this information into consideration, we also recognize that part of the purpose
of the challenge process is to demonstrate that broadband service is available in certain areas that the National
Broadband Map incorrectly shows as unserved.
394 See, e.g., SpeedConnect Challenge at 1-2.
395 Id. at Exhs. B, D.
396 CenturyLink Reply at 27-28.
397 SpeedConnect Challenge at 1-2.
398 Id. at Exh. D.
48

Federal Communications Commission

DA 14-32

it offers the requisite speeds in each census block, the totality of its submitted evidence leads us to
conclude that it is more likely than not that such speeds are offered.
253.
CenturyLink also argues that redaction of customer information makes responding to
the challenge impossible.399 As discussed above, such redactions do not invalidate a challenge.400
CenturyLink also contends that the maps submitted by SpeedConnect are illegible.401 While the maps are
of limited evidentiary value, they do provide some evidence of the general locations where SpeedConnect
offers service.
254.
In its response, Windstream offers the same arguments as CenturyLink (no specific
statement of 3 Mbps/768 kbps service, lack of legible maps, no customer records).402 We reject these
arguments for the same reasons we reject CenturyLink’s.
255.
Frontier did not respond to SpeedConnect’s challenge.
256.
Therefore, we grant SpeedConnect’s challenge in its entirety. Based on the evidence
before us, we find it more likely than not that the blocks in question are served by broadband. The
challenged blocks will be treated as served for the purposes of the second round of Connect America
Phase I and therefore ineligible for funding.
257.
SuddenLink Communications. SuddenLink Communications (SuddenLink) challenges
462 census blocks elected by AT&T (4 blocks), CenturyLink (293 blocks), Frontier (one block), and
Windstream (164 blocks).403 One hundred eighteen of these blocks are shown as served on the National
Broadband Map, but that designation was initially challenged by Windstream based on evidence of a lack
of porting. In support of its challenge, SuddenLink submits a certification from its vice president of
government relations and senior counsel stating that SuddenLink “offers fixed broadband Internet access
service of at least 3 Mbps downstream/768 kbps upstream to current and prospective customers in the
census blocks listed.”404 SuddenLink also provides a list of redacted addresses for one served or
serviceable customer in each census block.405
258.
In reply, AT&T, CenturyLink, and Windstream all make one or more of the following
arguments: SuddenLink’s certification is not expressly from an officer of the company, SuddenLink refers
to locations as being “serviceable” rather than actually served, and it files information confidentially.406
259.
Frontier did not respond to SuddenLink’s challenge.


399 CenturyLink Reply at 28.
400 In evaluating this challenge, SpeedConnect’s claim of available customer records was treated the same as a mere
statement that customer records exist for some number of the challenged census blocks.
401 Id.
402 Windstream Reply at 57-58.
403 Letter from K.C. Halm, Counsel for SuddenLink Communications, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal
Communications Commission, WC Docket No. 10-90 (filed Sept. 27, 2013) (SuddenLink Challenge). For census
blocks in Ohio and Texas, Connected Nation reports that the most recent data submitted by SuddenLink shows some
blocks as served and some blocks as unserved by SuddenLink. Connected Nation Reply at 22. We consider this
information in combination with SuddenLink’s more recent certification that it is providing service to all the census
blocks in question.
404 SuddenLink Challenge at Attach. 1.
405 Id. at Attach. 2.
406 AT&T Reply at Attach.; CenturyLink Reply at 29; Windstream Reply at 58-60.
49

Federal Communications Commission

DA 14-32

260.
Consistent with the framework discussed above, we grant SuddenLink’s challenge in
its entirety. Based on the evidence before us, we find it more likely than not that the blocks in question
are served by broadband. The challenged blocks will be treated as served for the purposes of the second
round of Connect America Phase I and therefore ineligible for funding.
261.
TDS Baja Broadband. TDS Baja Broadband (TDS) challenges 113 census blocks
elected by Windstream.407 One hundred seven of these census blocks are shown as served on the National
Broadband Map, but that designation was initially challenged by Windstream based on evidence of a lack
of porting. In support of its challenge, TDS submits a certification from its vice president attesting that
TDS is offering broadband in excess of the required speeds.408 TDS also provides a list of serviceable
addresses in the census blocks, along with redacted billing statements for existing customers.409
262.
In reply, Windstream argues that TDS’s certification is not explicitly from an officer of
the company and not made under penalty of perjury.410 Windstream also contends that TDS merely states
that locations are serviceable rather than actually served, and thus falls short of the requirements for
excluding an area from Phase I support.411
263.
Consistent with the framework discussed above, we grant TDS’s challenge in its
entirety. Based on the evidence before us, we find it more likely than not that the blocks in question are
served by broadband. According to TDS’s certification, it is offering service; the fact that it provides a
list of “serviceable” addresses along with actual billing statements further supports that certification.
The challenged blocks will be treated as served for the purposes of the second round of Connect America
Phase I and therefore ineligible for funding.
264.
Texas Communications of Bryan. Texas Communications of Bryan challenges 32
census blocks elected by CenturyLink (3 blocks) and Windstream (29 blocks).412 Two of these census
blocks are shown as served on the National Broadband Map, but that designation was initially challenged
by Windstream based on evidence of a lack of porting. In support of its challenge, Texas
Communications of Bryan submits a certification from its vice president stating that it “provides Internet
Service at speeds of at least 3 Mbps/768 kbps or higher to customers in census block groups listed.”413
Texas Communications of Bryan also provides a coverage map and customer billing statements for the
pertinent census blocks.414


407 Letter from Andrew S. Petersen, Vice President of External Affairs and Communications, TDS
Telecommunications Corp., to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, WC Docket
No. 10-90 (filed Sept. 25, 2013). TDS Baja Broadband is a competitive affiliate of a rate-of-return carrier, TDS
Telecommunications Corp. Because these census blocks are served by the competitive affiliate, they are treated as
served regardless of whether they fall within the territory of the rate-of-return company.
408 Id. at Attach. B.
409 Id. at Attachs. C, D.
410 Windstream Reply at 60-61.
411 Id.
412 Letter from Bryan S. Sewell, Texas Communications of Bryan, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal
Communications Commission, WC Docket No. 10-90 (filed Sept. 27, 2013) (Texas Communications of Bryan
Challenge).
413 Id. at Attach. 1.
414 Id. at Attachs. 3, 4.
50

Federal Communications Commission

DA 14-32

265.
In reply, CenturyLink argues that the submitted certification does not explicitly state
that it offers fixed service.415 However, as CenturyLink notes in its own filing, Texas Communications of
Bryan states in its cover letter that it is a fixed wireless broadband provider.416 CenturyLink also argues
that none of the provided billing statements relate to the census blocks elected by CenturyLink.417
266.
Windstream also responds to Texas Communications of Bryan’s challenge.418
Windstream argues that Texas Communications of Bryan fails to submit sufficient evidence to support its
challenge, noting that to the extent the submitted maps are used to inform the National Broadband Map,
Texas Communications of Bryan is making a circular argument (i.e., using the National Broadband Map
to make an argument regarding changes to the National Broadband Map).419 This argument falls short in
two regards. First, Texas Communications of Bryan submits evidence other than its coverage maps:
specifically, a certification from its vice president. Second, only two of the sixteen blocks that Texas
Communications of Bryan is challenging were initially challenged by Windstream (i.e., Windstream
arguing that the National Broadband Map is incorrect). Thus, Texas Communications of Bryan is not
merely, as Windstream contends, using the National Broadband Map to argue against changes in the
National Broadband Map.
267.
Windstream also argues that the billing statements are of no evidentiary value because
the statements do not list the census blocks they relate to or the speeds provided.420
268.
Weighing the arguments of the price cap carriers against the evidence submitted by
Texas Communications of Bryan, we find in favor of Texas Communications of Bryan. We base our
decision on the certification and coverage map submitted by Texas Communications of Bryan and do not
rely on the billing statements. Therefore, we grant Texas Communications of Bryan’s challenge in its
entirety. Based on the evidence before us, we find it more likely than not that the blocks in question are
served by broadband. The challenged blocks will be treated as served for the purposes of the second
round of Connect America Phase I and therefore ineligible for funding.
269.
Texas Communications of San Angelo. Texas Communications of San Angelo
challenges a census tract.421 This census tract encompasses 26 census blocks elected by Windstream,
three of which are shown as served on the National Broadband Map that Windstream initially challenged
based on a lack of porting evidence.422 While Texas Communications of San Angelo’s filing using the


415 CenturyLink Reply at 22-23.
416 Id. at 23; Texas Communications of Bryan Challenge at 1.
417 CenturyLink Reply at 23.
418 Windstream Reply at 61-62.
419 Id. at 61.
420 Id. at 61-62. The billing statements include latitude and longitude coordinates for the service location, and it is
simple enough to derive the census block from that information using publicly available tools. The census blocks in
question are 480410020111017, 483959603003112, 481851803013037. These census blocks were determined
using the Commission’s publicly available Census Block Conversions API. Census Block Conversion API, Federal
Communications Commission, http://www.fcc.gov/developers/census-block-conversions-api (last visited Jan. 6,
2014).
421 Letter from Buz Wojtek, Vice President of Operations, Texas Communications of San Angelo, to Marlene H.
Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, WC Docket No. 10-90 (filed Sept. 27, 2013) (Texas
Communications of San Angelo Challenge).
422 Connected Nation data show that Texas Communications of San Angelo entirely or partially serves each of these
26 census blocks. Connected Nation Reply at 18.
51

Federal Communications Commission

DA 14-32

terms “census block” and “census tract” interchangeably, we will assume it meant to refer consistently to
census tract. In support of its challenge, Texas Communications of San Angelo states in a certification
that “it provides Terrestrial Wireless Broadband in the [census tract] with download speeds in excess of 3
Mbps and upload speeds in excess of 768 kbps.”423 The filing also includes advertising materials showing
offerings of the necessary speeds and a billing statement for a customer subscribing to the necessary
speed.424
270.
In reply, Windstream argues that Texas Communications of San Angelo has not
provided sufficient evidence to support its challenge.425 Windstream contends that the advertising
materials do not expressly state that the level of service is offered in the contested blocks, and due to
redaction, it is impossible to verify that the bill is for a disputed census block. We conclude, however,
that Texas Communications of San Angelo’s certification is sufficient to support its challenge.
Furthermore, Texas Communications of San Angelo’s filing states that the advertising materials are for
service offered in the disputed blocks.426 While the exact address service is redacted, the city and ZIP
code indicate that service is provided in the general area of the disputed blocks, lending some evidentiary
weight to the submission. Weighing Windstream’s arguments and porting evidence against Texas
Communications of San Angelo’s filing, we find in favor of Texas Communications of San Angelo.
271.
Therefore, we grant Texas Communications of San Angelo’s challenge in its entirety.
Based on the evidence before us, we find it more likely than not that the blocks in question are served by
broadband. The challenged blocks will be treated as served for the purposes of the second round of
Connect America Phase I and therefore ineligible for funding.
272.
Time Warner Cable. Time Warner Cable (TWC) challenges 2,605 census blocks
elected by AT&T (3 blocks), CenturyLink (9 blocks), FairPoint (45 blocks), Frontier (181 blocks), and
Windstream (2,367 blocks).427 Two thousand two hundred fifty six of these blocks are shown as served
on the National Broadband Map, but that designation was initially challenged by Windstream and
Frontier. Windstream initially challenged 2,254 of these blocks based on evidence of lack of porting.
Frontier challenged two of these census blocks based on evidence that another provider fails to offer the
requisite speeds.428 In support of its challenge, TWC provides a certification from a third party explaining
the process for determining the challenged blocks, along with a certification from its vice president and
chief counsel that TWC is capable of providing the requisite speeds in the challenged census blocks.429
273.
In reply, CenturyLink argues that TWC only partially serves some of the blocks in
question.430 For these blocks, we grant TWC’s challenge, as the National Broadband Map should show


423 Texas Communications of San Angelo Challenge at 2.
424 Id. at 3-4.
425 Windstream Reply at 62.
426 Texas Communications of San Angelo Challenge at 2.
427 Comments of Time Warner Cable, WC Docket No. 10-90 (filed Sept. 27, 2013) (TWC Challenge). TWC also
challenges two census blocks elected by no carrier. For challenges in Ohio, South Carolina, and Texas, Connected
Nation reports that TWC’s broadband data submissions generally support its claims that it serves the census blocks
in question. See Connected Nation Reply at 18-19.
428 As Frontier’s initial challenge of these two census blocks relates to a provider other than TWC, we will ignore it
for purposes of TWC’s challenge.
429 TWC Challenge at Attachs. 3, 4.
430 CenturyLink Reply at 23-24.
52

Federal Communications Commission

DA 14-32

partially served blocks as served. However, we reiterate the standard exception that, for census blocks
that the National Broadband Map’s underlying data show as partially served, the price cap carrier may
build to the unserved portions of the block.431
274.
Frontier argues that certification explaining the process for determining challenges is
not from an officer of the company and should be disregarded. 432 Frontier also argues that TWC uses
language referring to locations being “serviceable” rather than “served.”433
275.
Windstream similarly argues that the certifications are not expressly from officers of
the company.434 Windstream also argues that the “serviceable” locations may require customers to pay
high line extension fees to actually receive service.435 Windstream further argues that TWC has stated
that it has customer counts and address data available for some of the challenged blocks, but TWC has not
provided that information.436 As noted above, however, redaction is not fatal to a challenge. The Bureau
is not giving any undue weight to data that is not publicly available. Instead, the Bureau merely treats this
as a statement that such records exist.
276.
Windstream also notes that it performed an analysis by processing addresses through
TWC’s customer service website. Every address in two census blocks returned messages that service was
not available.437 For these two blocks, we grant Windstream’s challenge. For an additional 115 blocks,
Windstream states that the website returns a message that an online order cannot be processed, and that
the prospective customer should contact TWC customer service.438 We conclude that this extra step of
contacting customer service does not establish that service is not offered; it merely means the prospective
customer cannot order service online. Windstream further argues that for these 115 blocks, TWC’s
website does not clearly state that the requisite speeds are offered.439 However, this argument is
unpersuasive in light of TWC’s certified statement that it offers speeds at or above 20 Mbps/2 Mbps
throughout its entire network.440
277.
AT&T and FairPoint did not respond to TWC’s challenge.
278.
Weighing the price cap carrier’s initial challenges and responses against the evidence
submitted by TWC, we find in favor of TWC with the exception of the two census blocks identified by
Windstream where TWC’s website reports that service is not available. Based on the evidence before us,
we conclude that it is more likely than not that those two census blocks (370370206002088 and
390070011011033) are unserved by TWC. Those two census blocks will be treated as unserved by TWC
for purposes of the second round of Connect America Phase I and therefore eligible for support. For the
remaining 2,603 census blocks, we grant TWC’s challenge. Based on the evidence before us, we find it
more likely than not that the blocks in question are served by broadband. The challenged blocks will be


431 See Second Order on Reconsideration, 27 FCC Rcd at 4651, paras. 10-11.
432 Frontier Reply at 8.
433 Id.
434 Windstream Reply at 63.
435 Id. at 63-65.
436 Id. at 65.
437 Id. at 64.
438 Id.
439 Id.
440 TWC Challenge at Attach. 4.
53

Federal Communications Commission

DA 14-32

treated as served for the purposes of the second round of Connect America Phase I and therefore
ineligible for support.441
279.
Troy Cablevision. Troy Cablevision challenges 13 census blocks elected by
CenturyLink.442 In support of its challenge, Troy Cablevision submits an affidavit from its chief financial
officer stating “Troy Cablevision, Inc. offers 3 Mbps/768 kbps or greater Internet service to customers in
the census blocks referenced.”443 Troy Cablevision also provides redacted customer bills,444 a listing of
service tiers,445 service area maps,446 and BTOP fiber deployment maps.447
280.
In reply, CenturyLink raises several arguments.448 First, CenturyLink notes that the
bills provided by Troy Cablevision are for areas outside of the challenged census blocks.449 Second,
CenturyLink suggests that three census blocks that received a BTOP grant should be eligible because that
funding was not for last mile facilities.450 However, Troy Cablevision states in its filing that while
“current homes passed cannot access the network, Troy Cable anticipates spending non-federal funds in
1st Q 2014 to connect homes passed which were not an allowable expense under the BTOP Grant.”451 We
view this statement as sufficient to establish that homes will be served in the area of a BTOP project; the
Commission did not specifically mandate that BTOP funding be used for the last mile facility.
281.
Therefore, we grant Troy Cablevision’s challenge for the thirteen census blocks. Based
on the evidence before us, we find it more likely than not that the blocks in question are served by


441 We note that TWC filed a rebuttal to the replies of the price cap carriers. Letter from Terri B. Natoli, Time
Warner Cable, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, WC Docket No. 10-90
(filed Dec. 5, 2013). Given how we address most of the price cap carriers’ arguments against TWC, there is no need
to address the majority of the letter. However, TWC argues that we should reject Windstream’s argument that
TWC’s website reported that service was unavailable to every address in two census blocks. Id. at 3. TWC argues
that the website is not “intended or able to provide a comprehensive account of every specific location where
TWC’s services are available” and that “it cannot process any inputted address that varies in any way from the
format in TWC’s billing system.” Id. Despite this, we conclude that a provider’s website reporting that service is
unavailable is strong evidence that service is not offered in an area. Consumers living in those census blocks would
likely conclude, after visiting the website, that TWC was either unable or unwilling to provide broadband service to
their homes.
442 Letter from William H. Freeman, President, Troy Cablevision, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal
Communications Commission, WC Docket No. 10-90 (filed Sept. 30, 2013) (Troy Cablevision Challenge). Troy
Cablevision also challenges one census block that was not elected by any carrier (011091893004023).
443 Id. at App. B.
444 Id. at App. C.
445 Id. at App. D.
446 Id. at App. E.
447 Id. at App. F.
448 CenturyLink Reply at 38-39.
449 Id.
450 Id. at 38.
451 Troy Cablevision Challenge at App. E.
54

Federal Communications Commission

DA 14-32

broadband or are within an area of a BTOP project. The challenged blocks will be treated as served for
the purposes of the second round of Connect America Phase I and therefore ineligible for funding.452
282.
TruVista Communications. TruVista Communications challenges 87 census blocks
elected by Windstream.453 These blocks are shown as served on the National Broadband Map, but that
designation was initially challenged by Windstream based on evidence of a lack of porting. In support of
its challenge, TruVista Communications provides a certification from its vice president of administration
and regulatory affairs stating that all its submissions are accurate, including a statement that “TruVista
already has in place facilities capable of providing broadband service to challenged census blocks at a
download speed of at least 15 Mbps and an upload speed of at least 2 Mbps.”454 TruVista
Communications also provides maps of its existing plant, along with a list of speeds that customers in the
challenged census blocks subscribe to.455
283.
In reply, Windstream argues that the provided maps do not clearly identify the
challenged census blocks, nor do they provide an explanation of markings on the map.456 However, all
census blocks are listed on the maps, so it is possible to cross reference the map with TruVista
Communications’ challenge. The lack of an explanation of the markings appears to be due to the files
being uploaded into ECFS, which removed the layer descriptions from the file.457 Even lacking this
description, the maps, combined with TruVista Communications’ certification, provides some evidence
that it serves the areas in question – TruVista Communications’ submission states that it provides maps
showing coverage in the disputed blocks and the disputed blocks appear on these maps.
284.
Windstream also contests TruVista Communications’ list of customers and speed tiers,
noting that full addresses are not provided.458 The list, combined with TruVista Communication’s
certification, demonstrates that TruVista Communication conducted an analysis in determining that the
census blocks are already served by the speeds listed and that customers exist in the challenged blocks.
285.
Consistent with the framework discussed above, we grant TruVista Communications’
challenge in its entirety. Based on the evidence before us, we find it more likely than not that the blocks
in question are served by broadband. The challenged blocks will be treated as served for the purposes of
the second round of Connect America Phase I and therefore ineligible for funding.
286.
W.A.T.C.H. TV Co. W.A.T.C.H. TV Co. d/b/a Watch Communications (Watch)
challenges 43 census blocks elected by Windstream.459 Two of these blocks are shown as served on the
National Broadband Map, but that designation was initially challenged by Windstream based on evidence


452 We note that Troy Cablevision filed a rebuttal to the reply of CenturyLink. Letter from William H. Freeman,
President, Troy Cablevision, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, WC Docket
No. 10-90 (filed Nov. 21, 2013). We need not consider the rebuttal, given our review of Troy Cablevision’s
challenge and CenturyLink’s response.
453 Letter from Thomas T. Harper, Vice President of Administration and Regulatory Affairs, TruVista
Communications, to the Federal Communications Commission, WC Docket No. 10-90 (filed Sept. 27, 2013).
454 Id.
455 Id. at Attachs.
456 Windstream Reply at 68.
457 Notably, the pink lines indicate exchange boundaries.
458 Id.
459 Letter from Thomas N. Knippen, Vice President and General Manager, W.A.T.C.H. TV Co., to Marlene H.
Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, WC Docket No. 10-90 (filed Sept. 20, 2013).
55

Federal Communications Commission

DA 14-32

of a lack of porting. In support of its challenge, Watch provides a certification that “Watch is offering
fixed wireless Internet Access service utilizing the 2.5 GHz band at speeds in excess of 3 Mbps
downstream and 768 kbps upstream to subscribers within the census blocks at issue.”460 Watch also
submits a listing of its speed tiers, along with redacted customer bills showing service in the disputed
census blocks.461
287.
In reply, Windstream argues that none of Watch’s customers actually subscribe to 3
Mbps/768 kbps service, instead opting for lower tier service packages.462 This is irrelevant; Watch
certifies it is able to provide the necessary speeds, so it does not matter that customers choose to subscribe
to lower speeds. Windstream also contends that Watch does not specify how many customers it could
support at the level of 3 Mbps/768 kbps.463 But other than a hypothetical example, Windstream provides
no evidence to suggest that Watch is not able to provide the necessary speeds to customers in the disputed
blocks. Given the evidence submitted by Watch and the arguments made by Windstream, we find in
favor of Watch.
288.
Therefore, we grant Watch’s challenge in its entirety. Based on the evidence before us,
we find it more likely than not that the blocks in question are served by broadband. The challenged
blocks will be treated as served for the purposes of the second round of Connect America Phase I and
therefore ineligible for funding.
289.
WaveDivision Holdings. WaveDivision Holdings (WaveDivision) challenges 22
census blocks elected by CenturyLink.464 In support of its challenge, WaveDivision supplies a
certification from its executive vice president for business and legal affairs stating the WaveDivision
“offers fixed broadband Internet access service of at least 3 Mbps downstream/768 kbps upstream to
current and prospective customers in the census blocks.”465 WaveDivision also provides a redacted list of
census blocks indicating the number of homes passed in each of the challenged blocks.466
290.
In reply, CenturyLink argues that the number of homes passed is redacted from the
filing and should not be considered by the Bureau.467 CenturyLink also argues that WaveDivision fails to
distinguish between census blocks that are served and those that are merely serviceable. 468
291.
Consistent with the framework discussed above, we grant WaveDivision’s challenge in
its entirety. Based on the evidence before us, we find it more likely than not that the blocks in question
are served by broadband. The challenged blocks will be treated as served for the purposes of the second
round of Connect America Phase I and therefore ineligible for funding.
292.
Winnebago Cooperative Telecom Association. Winnebago Cooperative Telecom
Association (Winnebago) challenges six census blocks elected by Windstream.469 These blocks are


460 Id. at 1.
461 Id. at 2-62.
462 Windstream Reply at 67.
463 Id.
464 Letter from K.C. Halm, Counsel for WaveDivision Holdings, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal
Communications Commission, WC Docket No. 10-90 (filed Sept. 27, 2013).
465 Id. at Attach.
466 Id.
467 CenturyLink Reply at 29-30.
468 Id.
56

Federal Communications Commission

DA 14-32

shown as served on the National Broadband Map, but that designation was initially challenged by
Windstream based on evidence of a lack of porting. Winnebago supports its challenge with a certification
from its general manager stating that “Winnebago offers broadband exceeding 3 Mbps/768 kbps up
speeds in the census blocks listed.”470
293.
In reply, Windstream contests Winnebago’s challenge on two grounds.471 First,
Windstream argues that it is unclear as to what areas Winnebago is providing service as a rate-of-return
incumbent carrier and what areas it is providing service as a competitive carrier.472 This issue was
resolved by an e-mail from Winnebago’s consultant to the Bureau and Windstream, wherein Winnebago
confirmed the challenge related solely to its competitive territory.473 Second, Windstream argues that a
certification alone is insufficient to support Winnebago’s challenge.474
294.
Consistent with the framework discussed above, we grant Winnebago’s challenge in its
entirety. Based on the evidence before us, we find it more likely than not that the blocks in question are
served by broadband. The challenged blocks will be treated as served for the purposes of the second
round of Connect America Phase I and therefore ineligible for funding.
295.
WVVA.net. WVVA.net challenges 380 census blocks elected by Frontier.475 In support
of its challenge, WVVA.net provides a certification from its president that the disputed census blocks are
within its territory, and that service above 3 Mbps/768 kbps is provided to those census block.476
WVVA.net notes that it currently serves 97 customers in the listed blocks.477 WVVA.net also provides
coverage maps showing its service area.478
296.
Frontier does not reply to WVVA.net’s challenge.
297.
Therefore, we grant WVVA.net’s challenge in its entirety. The challenged blocks will
be treated as served for the purposes of the second round of Connect America Phase I and therefore
ineligible for funding.

D.

FUNDING AUTHORIZATIONS

298.
USAC is authorized and directed to distribute Connect America Phase I incremental
support to the carriers in the amounts specified in Appendix 1 to this Order. For accounting purposes,
(Continued from previous page)


469 Letter from Mark Thoma, General Manager, Winnebago Cooperative Telecom Association, to the Federal
Communications Commission, WC Docket No. 10-90 (filed Sept. 23, 2013) (Winnebago Challenge). Connected
Nation confirms that the most recent data submitted by Winnebago shows these census blocks as served. Connected
Nation Reply at 19. While this provides some weight to Winnebago’s challenge, it also must be viewed in the
context that Windstream is challenging the designation on the National Broadband Map.
470 Winnebago Challenge at 1.
471 Windstream Reply at 67-68.
472 Id.
473 See Letter to the Record.
474 Windstream Reply at 68.
475 Opposition of WVVA.net, WC Docket No. 10-90 (filed Sept. 27, 2013).
476 Id. at 1, 14.
477 Id. at 2.
478 Id. at 2-14.
57

Federal Communications Commission

DA 14-32

disbursements are listed by operating company. However, the holding level company is free to
redistribute these funds among its operating companies, so long as the holding company ultimately states
in its annual reports where the funds were spent.479
299.
AT&T, Frontier, and Windstream conditionally accepted funding when they made their
initial elections. To the extent they now wish to modify their prior acceptances in light of our resolution
of the challenges in this Order,480 they must identify the number of locations and specific census blocks
within 45 days of the release of this Order. In order to bring this second round of Phase I to a close,
modifications are only permitted to census blocks that were previously elected. Upon the expiration of
the 45-day period, the Bureau will finalize the amount of unclaimed Phase I support that will be added to
the budget for Phase II.481 To the extent any of these carriers rescind prior elections, USAC shall
promptly reclaim those disbursements.

IV.

ORDERING CLAUSE

300.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1, 4(i),
4(j), 5, 214, and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and section 706 of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 154(i), 154(j), 155, 214, 254, 1302, sections 0.91,
0.291, and 1.102 of the Commission’s rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.102, and the authority delegated
to the Wireline Competition Bureau by the Commission in the Phase I Order, 28 FCC Rcd 7766 (2013),
that this Order IS ADOPTED, effective upon release.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Julie A. Veach
Chief
Wireline Competition Bureau


479 47 C.F.R. § 54.313(b)(2)(ii).
480 Phase I Order, 28 FCC Rcd at 7777-78, para. 31.
481 Id. at 7769-70, para. 9.
58

Federal Communications Commission

DA 14-32

APPENDIX 1

Connect America Phase I Round Two Authorized Amounts1

Study

Study Area

Area Authorized Amount

Code

BellSouth Telecommunications, LLC (AT&T)
255181
$10,075.00
UNITED TELEPHONE OF NEW JERSEY, INC.
160138
$296.40
(CenturyLink)
UNITED TELEPHONE OF PENNSYLVANIA
170209
$133.38
(CenturyLink)
CENTRAL TEL. CO. OF VIRGINIA (CenturyLink)
190254
$23,208.88
UNITED TELEPHONE - SOUTHEAST, INC – VIRGINIA
190567
$3,027.33
(CenturyLink)
United of Florida (CenturyLink)
210341
$11,750.73
CAROLINA TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH, LLC
230470
$7,670.28
(CenturyLink)
CENTRAL TEL. CO. OF NC (CenturyLink)
230471
$427.76
UNITED TEL. CO. OF THE CAROLINAS-SO.
240506
$4,569.29
CAROLINA (CenturyLink)
Gulf Telephone Company (CenturyLink)
250298
$390.71
CenturyTel of Southern Alabama
259788
$10,345.07
CenturyTel of Northern Alabama
259789
$12,221.83
CenturyTel of Central Louisiana, LLC
270423
$2,029.67
CenturyTel of Southeast Louisiana, LLC
270424
$232.18
CenturyTel of Northwest Louisiana, Inc.
270431
$197.60
CenturyTel of Evangeline, LLC
270434
$8,261.96
CenturyTel of North Louisiana, LLC
270436
$1,036.51
CenturyTel of Southwest Louisiana, LLC
270442
$3,296.12
CenturyTel of North Mississippi, Inc.
280458
$1,795.25
CenturyTel of Adamsville, Inc.
290552
$69.16
CenturyTel of Claiborne, Inc.
290557
$2,218.29
UNITED TELEPHONE - SOUTHEAST, INC –
290567
$2,702.19
TENNESSEE (CenturyLink)
UNITED TELEPHONE CO. OF OHIO (CenturyLink)
300661
$5,055.21
CenturyTel of Upper Michigan, Inc.
310689
$20.88
CenturyTel of Michigan, Inc.
CenturyTel of Central Indiana, Inc.
310702
320747
$222.30
$59.28


1 These operating companies and funding amounts are provided for USAC in order to distribute funding. These
allotments do not indicate the geographic areas where funds will actually be used to deploy broadband capable
infrastructure.
59

Federal Communications Commission

DA 14-32

UNITED TELEPHONE CO. OF INDIANA, INC.
320832
$674.09
(CenturyLink)
CenturyTel of the Midwest-Wisconsin (Cencom)
330841
$2,047.41
CenturyTel of Forestville, LLC
330884
$978.12
CenturyTel of Wisconsin, LLC
330895
$414.96
CenturyTel of Monroe County, LLC
330913
$742.13
CenturyTel of the Midwest-Wisconsin
330922
$5,255.73
CenturyTel of the Midwest-Kendall, LLC
330924
$3,695.13
CenturyTel of Southern Wisconsin, LLC
330931
$1,444.51
CenturyTel of Northwest Wisconsin, LLC
330950
$22,019.91
CenturyTel of Northern Wisconsin, LLC
330956
$10,407.27
CenturyTel of the Midwest-Wisconsin (Wayside)
330970
$780.52
Telephone USA of Wisconsin, LLC (CenturyLink)
331155
$7,744.83
CenturyTel of Central Wisconsin, LLC
331159
$6,082.51
CenturyTel of Minnesota, Inc.
361445
$1,591.81
EMBARQ – MINNESOTA (CenturyLink)
361456
$3,351.13
CenturyTel of Russellville
401142
$24,224.28
CenturyTel of Siloam Springs
401143
$582.92
CenturyTel of Central Ark, LLC
401144
$2,977.48
CenturyTel of Arkansas, Inc.
401705
$743.02
CenturyTel of Mountain Home, Inc.
401711
$2,242.77
CenturyTel of South Arkansas, Inc.
401727
$138.32
UNITED TELEPHONE CO. - EASTERN & SO. CENTRAL
411317
$955.00
KANSAS (CenturyLink)
UNITED TELEPHONE CO. - EASTERN & SO. CENTRAL
411842
$41.77
KANSAS (CenturyLink)
Spectra Communications Group, LLC (CenturyLink)
421151
$2,774.49
EMBARQ MISSOURI, INC (CenturyLink)
421957
$8,016.75
CenturyTel of Southern Missouri
429786
$3,156.67
CenturyTel of Southwest Missouri
429787
$3,859.50
UNITED TELEPHONE CO. OF TEXAS, INC.
442084
$2,529.74
(CenturyLink)
CENTRAL TELEPHONE CO. OF TEXAS (CenturyLink)
442114
$1,579.68
AZ Qwest (CenturyLink)
455101
$209,317.60
CenturyTel of Eagle, Inc.
462185
$29,766.09
CenturyTel of Montana, Inc.
482249
$127.54
CenturyTel of the Southwest (New Mexico)
492274
$758.74
UNITED TELEPHONE CO. OF THE WEST – WYOMING
511595
$69.16
(CenturyLink)
CenturyTel of Wyoming, Inc.
512299
$64.22
60

Federal Communications Commission

DA 14-32

UNITED TELEPHONE CO. OF THE NORTHWEST – WA
522400
$1,706.10
(CenturyLink)
CenturyTel of Washington, Inc.
522408
$11,204.64
CenturyTel of Oregon, Inc.
532361
$9,556.69
UNITED TELEPHONE CO. OF THE NORTHWEST – OR
532400
$1,121.38
(CenturyLink)
CENTRAL TELEPHONE CO. – NEVADA (CenturyLink)
552348
$167.13
Frontier West Virginia Inc.
205050
$3,748,250.00
Windstream Alabama, LLC
250302
$259,777.79
Windstream Arkansas, LLC
401691
$1,044,267.93
Windstream Florida, Inc.
210336
$262,971.89
Windstream Georgia, LLC
220357
$505,389.81
Windstream Georgia Communications, LLC
223037
$1,683,464.67
Georgia Windstream, LLC
223036
$955,128.63
Windstream Accucomm Telecommunications, LLC
220395
$82,882.72
Windstream Georgia Telephone, LLC
220364
$14,686.41
Windstream Iowa Communications, Inc.
351178
$179,799.59
Windstream Iowa Communications, Inc.
351167
$216,291.85
Windstream Iowa Communications, Inc.
351170
$272,217.80
Windstream Kentucky East, LLC
269690
$730,869.09
Windstream Kentucky East, LLC
269691
$210,087.93
Windstream Kentucky West, LLC
260402
$160,231.35
Windstream Missouri, Inc.
421885
$475,452.47
Windstream Mississippi, LLC
280453
$364,402.02
Windstream North Carolina, LLC
230476
$1,816,043.10
Windstream Concord Telephone, Inc
230474
$13,086.44
Windstream Nebraska, Inc.
371568
$168,509.10
Valor Telecommunications of New Mexico, LLC
491164
$227,219.64
(Windstream)
Windstream New York, Inc.
150109
$247,565.93
Windstream New York, Inc.
150106
$229,735.14
Windstream Western Reserve, Inc
300666
$232,648.44
Windstream Ohio, Inc.
300665
$118,889.44
Valor Telecommunications of Oklahoma, LLC (Windstream)
431165
$165,227.25
Windstream Oklahoma, LLC
431965
$41,075.74
Oklahoma Windstream, LLC
432011
$119,910.27
Windstream Pennsylvania, LLC
170176
$1,005,151.94
Windstream South Carolina, LLC
240517
$300,707.28
Valor Telecommunications of Texas, L.P. (Windstream)
Texas Windstream, Inc.
441163
442153
$1,898,010.30
$426,879.96
61

Federal Communications Commission

DA 14-32

Windstream Sugar Land, Inc
442147
$906.75
Windstream Communications Kerrville, LLC
442097
$71,861.33
62

Federal Communications Commission

DA 14-32

APPENDIX 2

Summary of Funding and Obligations

Carrier

Funding Authorized

$775 Locations1
$550 Locations2
AT&T
$10,075
13
0
CenturyLink
$486,150
474
216
FairPoint
$0
0
0
Frontier
$3,748,250
0
6,815
Windstream
$14,501,350
362
25,856
Total
$18,745,825
849
32,887


1 Number of locations lacking 768 kbps/200 kbps Internet service access that must be deployed to.
2 Number of locations having 768 kbps/200 kbps Internet service access, but lacking 3 Mbps/768 kbps Internet
service access, that must be deployed to.
63

Note: We are currently transitioning our documents into web compatible formats for easier reading. We have done our best to supply this content to you in a presentable form, but there may be some formatting issues while we improve the technology. The original version of the document is available as a PDF, Word Document, or as plain text.

close
FCC

You are leaving the FCC website

You are about to leave the FCC website and visit a third-party, non-governmental website that the FCC does not maintain or control. The FCC does not endorse any product or service, and is not responsible for, nor can it guarantee the validity or timeliness of the content on the page you are about to visit. Additionally, the privacy policies of this third-party page may differ from those of the FCC.