On April 4, 2025, the FCC’s Wireline Competition Bureau (WCB) issued an Order on Reconsideration addressing several Petitions for Reconsideration (PFR) that were filed in response to the July 2023 Enhanced ACAM (EA-CAM) Order. Major issues addressed in the PFRs include proposals to extend the EA-CAM plan’s broadband deployment milestones, changes to the processes for determining the presence of unsubsidized competition, and changes to the program’s technology neutral approach. The following is a discussion of how the Order on Reconsideration responds to these and other requests included in the PFRs:
* Changes to the EA-CAM Programs Deployment Deadlines – The EA-CAM Order requires deployment of broadband at speeds of 100/20 to 50% of a carrier’s required locations by 12/31/26, 75% deployment to required locations by 12/31/27, and 100% deployment to required locations by 12/31/28. The Order provides that the WCB may consider, in 2027, whether a one-year extension of the 12/31/2028 deadline is warranted. The ACAM Broadband Coalition (Coalition) proposed that the final deployment deadline of 12/31/28 be extended to 12/31/30 to align with the final deployment deadline of the BEAD Program. NTCA proposed a timeline requiring 25% deployment to required locations by the end of 2026, 50% by the end of 2027, 75% BDC by the end of 2028, and 100% by the end of 2029 with a one year “cure” period for completion by the end of 2030.
In the Order on Reconsideration (Order) the Commission acknowledges that the intent of the EA-CAM Order was to align the EA-CAM Program with the BEAD Program and further acknowledges the slower than expected implementation of the BEAD Program, however, the requests for an extension of the EA-CAM schedule were denied. In denying the Petitioner’s requests for an extension, the Commission found that the Petitioners did not provide reasons why EA-CAM recipients will be unable to meet the EA-CAM deadlines, why the milestones need to be aligned with the still uncertain deadlines for BEAD, or why the EA-CAM schedule is overly burdensome or unreasonable. The Order stated that it is essential that EA-CAM and BEAD continue to align by ensuring that duplicative support from both programs is not provided in the same area, however, it is not essential that the EA-CAM deployment schedule be aligned with the still uncertain deadlines of the BEAD Program. The Order also states that carriers had the option to decline EA-CAM support if they believed the deployment deadlines were too burdensome and expressed concern that changing the deployment milestones would delay the provision of broadband services in the affected areas.
* Changes to Processes for Identifying the Presence of an Unsubsidized Competitor – In its PFR the ACAM Broadband Coalition proposed a 60-day deadline by which all EA-CAM challenges must be resolved. In the Order the Commission declined to adopt this proposal finding that the Coalition failed to identify any error with the Commission’s conclusion that the BDC challenge process provides the necessary opportunities to resolve any claims of deficient coverage. The Order further states that resolving a challenge quickly is dependent on the specifics of the challenge and the number of challenges that have been filed. For these reasons the Commission declined to adopt the suggested 60-day deadline. Additionally, the Order cites in order to potentially adjust EA-CAM support offers as required by the end of 2025, the Commission plans to use BDC availability data as of 12/31/2023 as well as any resolved challenges as of 5/15/25. The Commission has been working to resolve all challenges filed by the required date of 8/1/24 and expects that all challenges will be resolved by 5/15/25.
In its PFR, NTCA made several proposals to modify the existing data collection and challenge processes. First, NTCA proposes that a would-be competitor, in addition to its standard BDC filings, file a certification confirming its ability to provide each of the elements of unsubsidized competition. In addition, NTCA proposes additional processes to address concerns about potentially inadequate BDC data. Finally, NTCA opines that support from other high cost programs (RDOF, CAF II) could be used by recipient providers to provide cross-boundary competition in an EA-CAM carrier’s service territory and as such would not meet the definition of unsubsidized competition.
The Commission declined to accept NTCA’s proposals. The Commission concluded that imposing separate reporting requirements on unsubsidized competitors would be duplicative of the BDC process and create unnecessarily administrative complexity and would impair its ability to efficiently conduct the challenge process. Further, the Order points to the fact that the BDC process requires providers to submit a certification from a corporate officer and an engineering professional. Finally, the Commission states that it has not seen any evidence that RDOF or CAF II recipients are using their awarded support in areas outside of the specific awarded support area.
* Provision of Support to Unserved Areas Subject to a Previously Awarded Grant – NTCA, USTA, and WTA proposed that EA-CAM support should be provided for locations that were unserved when the EA-CAM offers were made but where an EA-CAM carrier had a separate enforceable commitment to provide service but had not yet done so. NTCA argued that because EA-CAM carriers will have ongoing expenses in providing service to those areas some level of support for those locations should be provided. The Commission declined to adopt this proposal stating that providing support in this scenario runs counter to the EA-CAM program’s goal of avoiding duplicative support, as that carrier would then be receiving support from two different sources for the same location.
In addition to the major issues discussed above, the Order reiterates the EA-CAM Program’s technologically neutral approach to the provision of broadband services. The Order also clarifies and maintains the Commission’s directives in the EA-CAM Order regarding cybersecurity and supply chain risk management plans.
