Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, DC 20554

Transcription

1 Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, DC In the Matter of Connect America Fund ) ) ) WC Docket No REPLY COMMENTS OF THE AMERICAN CABLE ASSOCIATION ON PUBLIC NOTICES DA AND DA , UPDATING AND CORRECTING THE LIST OF UNSERVED AREAS ON THE NATIONAL BROADBAND MAP FOR CONNECT AMERICA PHASE I INCREMENTAL SUPPORT Matthew M. Polka President and Chief Executive Officer American Cable Association One Parkway Center Suite 212 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (412) Ross J. Lieberman Vice President of Government Affairs American Cable Association th Place, NW Washington, DC (202) Thomas Cohen Joshua Guyan Kelley Drye & Warren LLP 3050 K Street, NW Suite 400 Washington, DC Tel. (202) Fax (202) tcohen@kelleydrye.com Counsel to the American Cable Association January 24, 2013

2 SUMMARY In its initial comments on the Commission s Public Notices seeking updates and corrections to the list of unserved areas on the National Broadband Map ( NBM ) for Connect America Phase I incremental support, the American Cable Association ( ACA ) filed certifications from its members regarding areas (census blocks) they determined are served but that may not have been accurately described on the NBM. In these reply comments, ACA files additional documentation from its members and responds to the policy proposals set forth by the Commission and in comments of various price cap local exchange carriers ( LECs ) or their trade associations. In its comments, the Independent Telephone & Telecommunications Alliance ( ITTA ) claimed that the process for correcting the NBM set forth in the Public Notices cannot be relied upon to identify where the NBM and its underlying data are inaccurate but may be adequate enough to identify those circumstances where the NBM does not accurately reflect its underlying data. Submissions of ACA members regarding inaccuracies in the NBM were provided with specifically identified areas and certifications. As such, the proposed process will produce reliable results and the Commission should accept these as sufficient to correct the NBM. In addition to its prior submissions, ACA submits herein lists of census blocks that CenturyLink claimed in its comments are unserved, but are in fact served by ACA members. ACA agrees with CenturyLink and Windstream that the NBM should be accurate and that the Commission should establish a formal challenge process to provide an opportunity for parties to update or revise the NBM to ensure its accuracy. However, CenturyLink s proposed process is skewed in favor of incremental support recipients by effectively permitting them to declare the NBM is inaccurate and placing the burden on competitive providers to demonstrate

3 that their previous submissions were not correct. In contrast, Windstream recognizes that the incremental support recipient must initiate the challenge process by first submitting evidence indicating that the NBM is inaccurate, even though, as discussed below, the evidence it wants to submit falls short of being probative. ACA sets forth below a more equitable approach, which places the initial burden of proof on a provider challenging the NBM, then permits opportunities to rebut the provider s prima facie case, and enables the Commission to establish deadlines to ensure an expeditious resolution which is equitable and transparent. Further, ACA opposes the proposal of CenturyLink and USTelecom that the Commission raise the service area proxy from 4/1 Mbps to 6/1.5 Mbps because such a change would greatly expand the limited purpose of the Phase I incremental support program. ACA submits that a price cap LEC may have more than a sufficient number of lower cost locations shown on the NBM lacking broadband at speeds of 3 Mbps/768 kbps (the proxy for 4/1 Mbps service) for which it could use incremental support. Thus expanding the proxy to 6/1.5 Mbps is not necessary. Further, ACA opposes use of incremental support in partially served census blocks where competitors provide service. The Commission addressed this issue in the Second Reconsideration Order and provided targeted relief to the price cap LECs. Competitive providers are constantly expanding their networks, including to deploy broadband service to unserved locations. Therefore, the Commission should encourage this by withholding the provision of support to locations in areas where competitive providers offer service or even adjacent to these service territories. ii

4 Finally, ACA agrees with USTelecom that the latency and capacity performance metrics are both important and require clarification. ACA stands ready to work with USTelecom and others to craft appropriate standards. iii

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. THE COMMISSION SHOULD FIND THAT ACA MEMBERS HAVE PROVIDED SUFFICIENT DOCUMENTATION ABOUT INACCURACIES IN THE NATIONAL BROADBAND MAP... 1 II. III. IV. Page THE COMMISSION SHOULD ADOPT A FORMAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCESS WITH EQUITABLE AND REASONABLE BURDENS OF PROOF... 3 ACA OPPOSES RAISING THE SERVICE AREA PROXY FOR 5/1 MBPS TO 6/1.5 MBPS... 7 ACA OPPOSES USE OF INCREMENTAL SUPPORT IN PARTIALLY SERVED CENSUS BLOCKS WHERE COMPETITORS PROVIDE SERVICE... 9 V. ACA SUPPORTS THE COMMISSION PROVIDING CLARITY ON THE SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR DETERMINING WHETHER THE LATENCY AND CAPACITY OBLIGATIONS ARE MET VI. CONCLUSION... 11

6 Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, DC In the Matter of Connect America Fund ) ) ) WC Docket No REPLY COMMENTS OF THE AMERICAN CABLE ASSOCIATION ON PUBLIC NOTICES DA AND DA , UPDATING AND CORRECTING THE LIST OF UNSERVED AREAS ON THE NATIONAL BROADBAND MAP FOR CONNECT AMERICA PHASE I INCREMENTAL SUPPORT The American Cable Association ( ACA ) respectfully submits these reply comments in response to the Public Notices DA and DA seeking updates and corrections to the list of unserved areas on the National Broadband Map ( NBM ) for Connect America Phase I incremental support. In its initial comments, ACA filed certifications from its members regarding areas (census blocks) they determined are served but which may not have been accurately described on the NBM. 1 In these reply comments, ACA files additional documentation from its members and responds to the policy proposals set forth by the Commission and in comments of various price cap local exchange carriers ( LECs ) or their trade associations. I. THE COMMISSION SHOULD FIND THAT ACA MEMBERS HAVE PROVIDED SUFFICIENT DOCUMENTATION ABOUT INACCURACIES IN THE NATIONAL BROADBAND MAP In the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ( FNPRM ) on distribution of Phase I incremental support, the Commission proposed a limited challenge process to address inaccuracies with the NBM. 2 Even though comments on that proposed process are not due until 1 2 See Comments of the American Cable Association, WC Docket No (Jan. 9, 2013). See Connect America Fund, WC Docket No , Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC , 9-12 (rel. Nov. 19, 2012)..

7 January 28, 2013, the Commission issued Public Notices DA and DA , which effectively initiate the proposed challenge process and request submissions about inaccuracies in the NBM. In response, the Independent Telephone & Telecommunications Alliance ( ITTA ) submitted comments objecting to the Public Notice process as providing a woefully inadequate time period to respond and submitted that the process is arbitrary and imprudent in light of the fact that the comments on the challenge process are not to be filed until weeks after the deadline for submitting evidence about inaccuracies with the NBM. 3 ITTA then claims the process cannot be relied upon to identify where the NBM and its underlying data are inaccurate but may be adequate enough to identify those circumstances where the NBM does not accurately reflect its underlying data. 4 As noted above, ACA submitted on behalf of its members evidence about inaccuracies in the NBM. It agrees with ITTA s comment that parties could have used additional time to provide evidence about areas incorrectly identified on the NBM. However, it disagrees with ITTA s comment that the Commission s review process is only reliable for identifying discrepancies between the NBM and its underlying data. Submissions of ACA members regarding inaccuracies in the NBM were provided with specifically identified areas and certifications. As such, the proposed process will produce reliable results. The Commission should accept these as sufficient to correct the NBM. In its comments, CenturyLink provides a list of census blocks that it believes the NBM 3 4 Comments of the Independent Telephone & Telecommunications Alliance, WC Docket No at 2 (Jan. 9, 2013). ( ITTA Comments ) Id. at 3. 2

8 misidentified as served. 5 Included with these comments are certifications from ACA members Atlantic Telephone Membership Corporation (Exhibit A); Armstrong Utilities Inc. (Exhibit B); Massillon Cable TV, Inc. (Exhibit C); H&B Cable Service, Inc. (Exhibit D); Cable One, Inc. (Exhibit E); and Nittany Media, Inc. (Exhibit F) that they serve the identified census blocks listed by CenturyLink with the required broadband speeds. II. THE COMMISSION SHOULD ADOPT A FORMAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCESS WITH EQUITABLE AND REASONABLE BURDENS OF PROOF The Commission s proposed challenge process involves publication of a list of census blocks shown on the NBM as eligible for support and a request for comment on whether areas are overstated as served or understated as unserved. The Commission will then evaluate the evidence submitted and where it is more probable than not that the National Broadband Map inaccurately portrays coverage, it will correct the NBM for that particular area. ACA was preparing to submit comments on the Commission s proposed challenge process during the relevant comment period of the FNPRM (by January 28, 2013). However, various parties submitted comments on the challenge process in response to the Public Notices on identifying inaccuracies in the NBM. Consequently, ACA responds herein to their comments, as well as the Commission s proposal. In its comments, CenturyLink claims that the NBM, which the Commission uses to establish eligible areas for Phase I incremental support, is inaccurate, particularly in depicting areas as being served. 6 It therefore proposes that the Commission establish an alternative formal challenge process that would apply only to locations in which Incremental Support 5 6 See Comments of CenturyLink on Areas Shown as Unserved on the National Broadband Map For Connect America Phase I Incremental Support, WC Docket No at Appendix B (Jan. 9, 2013) ( CenturyLink Comments ). See CenturyLink Comments at 4. 3

9 recipients seek to deploy broadband using funding. 7 Further, it proposes to place the burden of proof in the process on service providers claiming coverage, not on those challenging the claim, as the service provider claiming coverage is the only entity with reasonable access to the network information necessary to support such a claim. 8 Windstream, in its comments, also supports a challenge process but proposes a different scheme. It submits that there is evidence that an area is unserved by competitive providers where it has received no requests in the past two years from customers for telephone number ports that are accompanied by cancellation of the customer s Windstream broadband service. 9 It proposes that if an incremental support recipient certifies that this condition exists, it should create a presumption that the area is eligible for CAF Phase I support, and a competitive provider would have the burden of submitting evidence that it is providing broadband service in the relevant area. 10 ACA agrees with CenturyLink and Windstream that the NBM should be accurate and that the Commission should establish a formal challenge process to provide an opportunity for parties to update or revise the NBM to ensure its accuracy. However, CenturyLink s proposed process is skewed in favor of incremental support recipients by effectively permitting them to declare the NBM is inaccurate and placing the burden on competitive providers to demonstrate that their previous submissions are not correct. In contrast, Windstream recognizes that the incremental support recipient must initiate the challenge process by first submitting evidence Id. Id., at 5. ITTA also proposes placing the burden on the competitive provider. See ITTA Comments at 4. Comments of Windstream Corporation, WC Docket No at 8 (Jan. 9, 2013). Windstream proposes that the competitive provider s evidence should include printouts of billing information for customers within the area or engineering analyses, with accompanying officer certification as to the veracity of the material provided. Id. at

10 indicating that the NBM is inaccurate, even though, as discussed below, the evidence it wants to submit falls short of being probative. Last year, ACA and the National Cable & Telecommunications Association ( NCTA ) proposed the following challenge process to the Commission, which places equal burdens of proof on a provider challenging the NBM, then permits opportunities to rebut the provider s prima facie case, and enables the Commission to establish deadlines to ensure an expeditious resolution which is equitable and transparent. 11 With specific respect to challenges by incremental support recipients, ACA outlined this process. Begin with the presumption that the NBM is correct. 12 The incremental support recipient seeking to rebut that presumption should identify the portion of the census block it believes is unserved and provide evidence for that assertion. If the Commission determines that the evidence is sufficient to make a prima facie case that the NBM is inaccurate, competitive providers would then have an opportunity to rebut the incremental support recipient s showing or the findings of the NBM. 13 As mentioned above, ACA suggested following a similar process should a competitive provider challenge the accuracy of a census block on the NBM as served rather than unserved. The ACA/NCTA proposed process thus differs from that proposed by the Commission in a key respect. ACA submits that its process is more equitable than the Commission s in that a provider whose service area on the NBM is being challenged would not be required to respond See Ex Parte Letter of American Cable Association and National Cable & Telecommunications Association, WC Docket Nos et al. (Mar. 29, 2012). This presumption is consistent with the position adopted by the Commission last year in its Second Reconsideration Order. See Connect America Fund et al., WC Docket No et al., Second Order on Reconsideration, 27 FCC Rcd 4648, 13 (Apr. 25, 2012) ( Second Reconsideration Order ). The process proposed by ACA/NCTA is essentially identical to that used by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration in awarding Broadband Technology Opportunities Program funding. Therefore, it is familiar, tested, and relatively straightforward to implement. 5

11 unless the Commission first determined that the party challenging the designation submitted sufficient evidence. This is especially important for smaller competitive providers that have limited resources to participate in proceedings. The ACA/NCTA process presumes that the state entities or non-profit organizations working at their direction that semiannually collect data on the availability, speed, and location of broadband services have a process in place that ensures the accuracy of the data they provide for the NBM. 14 Also, by presuming the NBM is accurate, the ACA/NCTA process encourages providers to participate in the regular data collection process for the NBM knowing they will not have to submit additional documentation if there is no valid challenge. ACA thus urges the Commission to modify the challenge process proposed in the FNPRM so that it conforms with the ACA/NCTA proposed process. 15 As for the question of whether Windstream s proposed evidence that an incremental support recipient has not received any customer requests to simultaneously port numbers and cancel broadband service is sufficient to require a response by a competitive provider, ACA submits that this evidence is insufficient to make a prima facie case. 16 As the Commission noted See e.g., Comments of Connected Nation, Inc. on CenturyLink s Petition for Waiver, WC Docket No et al (July 12, 2012), in which Connected Nation discusses the requirement of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration that all State Broadband Initiative grantees verify data through a secondary source and its own process for verifying data in the states where it is the mapping grantee or contractor. ACA recognizes that the Commission has already sought submission of challenges to the NBM, and it does not believe challengers should need to re-file. Further, it is reasonable to have these particular challenges heard pursuant to the Commission s proposed regime. At the same time, ACA urges the Commission to adopt ACA/NCTA s proposed process and apply it going forward. For many reasons, Windstream s evidence is not probative. First, it excludes circumstances in which a customer of an incremental support recipient may cancel their broadband service and port their phone line, but not take both actions at the same time. Second, the evidence would not take account of instances where a customer may simultaneously cancel their broadband service and their phone line, but choose not to port their number to their new provider. Third, it does not cover the situation in which a customer only cancels their broadband service (and maintains their phone service) because their new broadband service provider does not offer phone service. It is common for Wireless Internet Service Providers ( WISPs ) to not offer phone service. Finally, 6

12 in the Second Reconsideration Order, a provider may have no customers in a particular census block, even though it offers service there. 17 ACA thus believes a price cap LEC should submit additional evidence demonstrating at a minimum that a provider in the relevant area is not advertising or otherwise publicizing that it offers the requisite broadband service and is not accepting orders for service or has no facilities capable of providing service in the particular area. III. ACA OPPOSES RAISING THE SERVICE AREA PROXY FOR 5/1 MBPS TO 6/1.5 MBPS CenturyLink and the United States Telecom Association ( USTelecom ) argue that areas with broadband service of 3 Mbps/768 kbps on the NBM are not adequate to demonstrate that a provider offers 4/1 Mbps broadband service in an area. 18 Rather, they propose that the Commission use 6/1.5 Mbps as the proxy for purposes of determining areas eligible for Phase I incremental support. In addition, to limit use of support consistent with the Commission s 4/1 Mbps public interest obligation, they would require that a price cap LEC certify that it is not using Phase I incremental support to deploy to locations that are not currently engineered to meet the 4/1 Mbps standard. They base their proposal on the fact that for broadband providers like the price cap LECs, which use DSL technology, significant additional construction is required to under existing rules, for an incremental support recipient to deploy broadband under the Phase I program to a particular location, the provider must either be offering no broadband service or broadband service at speeds no greater than 768/200 kbps. Accordingly, the carrier would either have no broadband customers, or likely very few customers if a competing provider was offering broadband service at higher speeds. Therefore, evidence that an incremental support recipient did not have any customers simultaneously cancel their broadband service and port their number may speak more to the low adoption rate of the incremental support recipients broadband service in the area than to the presence of a competitor offering higher speed broadband. Second Reconsideration Order, 13. See CenturyLink Comments at 9-10 and Comments of the United States Telecom Association, WC Docket No at 3-6 (Jan. 9, 2013). 7

13 move from providing upstream speeds of 768 kbps to 1 Mbps. By accepting this proposal, the Commission would significantly increase the number of locations eligible to be served using Phase I incremental support. ACA opposes the proposal of CenturyLink and USTelecom because it would greatly expand the limited purpose of the Phase I incremental support program an interim program designed to provide an immediate boost to broadband deployment to those areas most in need of the service, that is, without broadband service with speeds of 768/200 kbps. 19 Whether the Commission should even expand the eligible areas to include those without 4/1 Mbps service is an issue raised in the FNPRM. 20 ACA notes that neither CenturyLink nor USTelecom provide in their comments evidence of the need to expand the number of additional locations that could be served with the limited incremental support funding beyond those already part of the pool of eligible locations those without 768/200 kbps service. 21 ACA submits that a price cap LEC may have more than a sufficient number of lower cost locations shown on the NBM lacking broadband at speeds of 3 Mbps/768 kbps (the proxy for 4/1 Mbps service) for which it could use incremental support and thus expanding the proxy to 6/1.5 Mbps is not necessary. ACA will discuss this further in the comments it will file on the FNPRM on January 28, In addition, even if the Commission determines to increase the eligible areas to those without 4/1 Mbps broadband, it is not necessary to expand further. CenturyLink and USTelecom s comments are directed to the technical limitations of DSL networks. Cable See e.g., Second Reconsideration Order, 20. See FNPRM, CenturyLink and USTelecom also do not provide data on the number of additional locations that would become eligible if the Commission increased the speed threshold to 3 Mbps/768 kbps or to 6/1.5 Mbps. Such evidence would be useful to determine whether an expansion of areas is necessary for the Phase I program and would be consistent with the program s purpose. 8

14 networks, however, operate based on a different technology and do not have the same restrictions on upstream speeds as DSL networks. Thus, if a cable provider is portrayed on the NBM as having 3 Mbps/768 kbps broadband service, it should not be assumed that it is not providing 4/1 Mbps service. This means the effect of increasing the proxy to 6/1.5 Mbps would be to designate census blocks where cable operators provide service of 4/1 Mbps as unserved when in fact they are served. Further, the additional requirement proposed by CenturyLink and USTelecom that the price cap LEC certify that the location does not receive 4/1 Mbps broadband has a number of flaws. It does not provide competitive providers with an ability to rebut the designation, and, even if it did, it places an added burden on competitive providers to contest them. In addition, it places an added burden on the Commission to examine designations and monitor builds. It also permits price cap LECs to use incremental support to build in areas where a competitive provider may offer service to most locations and could readily expand service. Finally, the Commission has acknowledged the need for the program to adopt additional measures to ensure greater accountability. 22 However, the proposal by CenturyLink and USTelecom would create greater uncertainty and require the adoption of additional measures to ensure accountability, including verification that funds were spent properly. For all of these reasons, the Commission should reject the proposal by CenturyLink and USTelecom. IV. ACA OPPOSES USE OF INCREMENTAL SUPPORT IN PARTIALLY SERVED CENSUS BLOCKS WHERE COMPETITORS PROVIDE SERVICE CenturyLink proposes that price cap LECs be able to use incremental support to provide service to unserved locations in partially served census blocks. 23 The Commission addressed this See FNPRM, 47. See CenturyLink Comments at 5. 9

15 issue in the Second Reconsideration Order and provided targeted relief to the price cap LECs by permitting them to use incremental support to build to an unserved location in a census block indicated on the NBM as served if the data underlying the Map show that a location is not served by a particular provider. 24 ACA strongly opposes any change to the Commission s current rule. Competitive providers are constantly expanding their networks, including to deploy broadband service to unserved locations. In fact, this dynamic has accelerated as wireless companies increase their cell sites and require them to be served by fiber. For instance, Mediacom has informed the Commission that these fiber builds enable them to serve locations in low density areas proximate to wireless towers with much higher speed broadband service. 25 The Commission should encourage this activity, including by withholding the provision of support to locations in areas where competitive providers offer service or even adjacent to these service territories. Providing such support will create a strong disincentive to private sector expansion. Moreover, it is a waste of scarce universal service resources. V. ACA SUPPORTS THE COMMISSION PROVIDING CLARITY ON THE SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR DETERMINING WHETHER THE LATENCY AND CAPACITY OBLIGATIONS ARE MET USTelecom requests that the Commission address the lack of clarity about the latency and capacity performance metrics, which are part of the public interest obligations adopted in the Connect America Fund Order and therefore a part of the determination of whether an area is served or unserved. 26 ACA agrees that these performance metrics are both important and require clarification. It stands ready to work with USTelecom and others to craft appropriate standards Second Reconsideration Order, 11. See Ex Parte Presentation of Mediacom: Driving Broadband Network Investment and Deployment in Rural America, WC Docket Nos , (June 13, 2012). See USTelecom Comments at

16 VI. CONCLUSION In its initial comments on the Commission s Public Notices seeking updates and corrections to the list of unserved areas on the NBM for Connect America Phase I incremental support, ACA submitted on behalf of its members evidence about inaccuracies in the NBM. Submissions of ACA members regarding inaccuracies in the NBM were provided with specifically identified areas and certifications. As such, the proposed process will produce reliable results and the Commission should accept these as sufficient to correct the NBM. Further, ACA submits herein lists of census blocks that CenturyLink claimed in its comments are unserved, but are in fact served by ACA members. In addition, any changes to the Commission s rules for distribution of incremental support should be consistent with the principles set forth herein. Respectfully submitted, Matthew M. Polka President and Chief Executive Officer American Cable Association One Parkway Center Suite 212 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (412) Ross J. Lieberman Vice President of Government Affairs American Cable Association th Place, NW Washington, DC (202) Thomas Cohen Joshua Guyan Kelley Drye & Warren LLP 3050 K Street, NW Suite 400 Washington, DC Tel. (202) Fax (202) tcohen@kelleydrye.com Counsel to the American Cable Association January 24,

17 EXHIBIT A

18

19 Highlighted census blocks and descriptions were shown on the Exhibit submitted by CenturyLink. Upon comparison to our serving areas, the highlighted census blocks are either fully served or partially served by ATMC in Columbus County, NC. 1/21/2013 WSD ATMC Engineering BOTH PARTIALLY SERVED BOTH PARTIALLY SERVED BOTH PARTIALLY SERVED BOTH PARTIALLY SERVED BOTH PARTIALLY SERVED BOTH PARTIALLY SERVED PARTIALLY SERVED BOTH PARTIALLY SERVED BOTH PARTIALLY SERVED BOTH PARTIALLY SERVED PARTIALLY SERVED BOTH PARTIALLY SERVED BOTH PARTIALLY SERVED BOTH PARTIALLY SERVED PARTIALLY SERVED BOTH PARTIALLY SERVED BOTH PARTIALLY SERVED BOTH PARTIALLY SERVED BOTH PARTIALLY SERVED BOTH PARTIALLY SERVED BOTH PARTIALLY SERVED BOTH PARTIALLY SERVED BOTH PARTIALLY SERVED BOTH PARTIALLY SERVED BOTH PARTIALLY SERVED

20 BOTH PARTIALLY SERVED BOTH PARTIALLY SERVED BOTH PARTIALLY SERVED BOTH PARTIALLY SERVED BOTH PARTIALLY SERVED PARTIALLY SERVED PARTIALLY SERVED PARTIALLY SERVED BOTH PARTIALLY SERVED BOTH PARTIALLY SERVED BOTH PARTIALLY SERVED PARTIALLY SERVED BOTH PARTIALLY SERVED PARTIALLY SERVED BOTH PARTIALLY SERVED BOTH PARTIALLY SERVED PARTIALLY SERVED BOTH PARTIALLY SERVED BOTH PARTIALLY SERVED BOTH PARTIALLY SERVED BOTH PARTIALLY SERVED BOTH PARTIALLY SERVED BOTH PARTIALLY SERVED BOTH PARTIALLY SERVED BOTH PARTIALLY SERVED BOTH PARTIALLY SERVED BOTH PARTIALLY SERVED BOTH PARTIALLY SERVED BOTH PARTIALLY SERVED BOTH PARTIALLY SERVED

21 BOTH PARTIALLY SERVED BOTH PARTIALLY SERVED CTL ONLY SERVED PARTIALLY SERVED BOTH PARTIALLY SERVED BOTH PARTIALLY SERVED BOTH PARTIALLY SERVED BOTH PARTIALLY SERVED BOTH PARTIALLY SERVED BOTH PARTIALLY SERVED BOTH PARTIALLY SERVED BOTH PARTIALLY SERVED CTL ONLY SERVED BOTH PARTIALLY SERVED BOTH PARTIALLY SERVED PARTIALLY SERVED PARTIALLY SERVED BOTH PARTIALLY SERVED BOTH PARTIALLY SERVED BOTH PARTIALLY SERVED BOTH PARTIALLY SERVED BOTH PARTIALLY SERVED

22 EXHIBIT B

23

24 A B C D E Census Blocks Served by Armstrong Utilites in CenturyLink Territories that Conflict with CenturyLink's Analysis State County Tract Block AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI

25 A B C D E AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI

26 A B C D E AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI

27 A B C D E AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI

28 A B C D E AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI

29 A B C D E AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI

30 A B C D E AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI

31 A B C D E AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI

32 A B C D E AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI

33 A B C D E AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI

34 A B C D E AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI

35 A B C D E AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI

36 A B C D E AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI

37 A B C D E AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI

38 A B C D E AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI

39 A B C D E AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI

40 A B C D E AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI

41 A B C D E AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI

42 A B C D E AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI AUI

43 EXHIBIT C

44 January 22, 2013 Marlene H. Dortch Federal Communications Commission th Street, S.W. Washington, DC Re: Comment on Areas Shown as Unserved on the National Broadband Map; WC Docket No Dear Ms. Dortch: Massillon Cable TV, Inc. hereby submits a list of census blocks that are identified as unserved in the Centurylink filing, but that are in fact served by Massillon Cable TV, Inc. with cable broadband at speeds of 20 Mbps downstream and 1.5 Mbps upstream. Census Block MCTV Fully served Fully served Fully served Partially Served Fully served Fully served Fully served Fully served Fully served Fully served Fully served Sincerely, Robert Gessner President Phone: rbgessner@massilloncabletv.com Fax:

45 EXHIBIT D

46

47

48 EXHIBIT E

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58 EXHIBIT F

59

60

61

62

63

64

65