Back to GetFilings.com

Table of Contents

UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549

(Mark One)

[X]

ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 [FEE REQUIRED]

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2001

OR

[   ]

TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 [NO FEE REQUIRED]

For the transition period from                      to

Commission file number 000-28167

(907) 297-3000
(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:

     Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.

Yes [X]     No [   ]

     Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K (§ 229.405 of this chapter) is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K. [X]

     The aggregate market value of the shares of all classes of voting stock of the registrant held by non-affiliates of the registrant on March 18, 2002, was approximately $78,625,761 computed upon the basis of the closing sales price of the Common Stock on that date. For purposes of this computation, shares held by directors (and shares held by any entities in which they serve as officers) and officers of the registrant have been excluded. Such exclusion is not intended, nor shall it be deemed, to be an admission that such persons are affiliates of the registrant.

     As of March 18, 2002, there were outstanding 31,758,876 shares of Common Stock, $.01 par value, of the registrant.

Documents Incorporated by Reference

     Portions of the proxy statement to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to Regulation 14A for the registrant’s 2002 annual meeting of stockholders are incorporated by reference into Part III of this Form 10-K.

Table of Contents

ALASKA COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS GROUP, INC.

ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K

FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2001

				Page
PART I
Item 1.		Business		2
Item 2.		Properties		25
Item 3.		Legal Proceedings		25
Item 4.		Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders		25
PART II
Item 5.		Market for the Registrant’s Common Equity and Related Stockholder Matters		26
Item 6.		Selected Financial Data		27
Item 7.		Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations		33
Item 7A		Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk		48
Item 8.		Financial Statements and Supplementary Data		49
Item 9.		Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure		49
PART III
Item 10.		Directors and Executive Officers of the Registrant		50
Item 11.		Executive Compensation		52
Item 12.		Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management		52
Item 13.		Certain Relationships and Related Transactions		52
PART IV
Item 14.		Exhibits, Financial Statement Schedules and Reports on Form 8-K		53
SIGNATURES				55
		Index to Combined and Consolidated Financial Statements		F-1

1

Table of Contents

PART I

Item 1. Business

Forward Looking Statements and Analysts’ Reports

     This Form 10-K and future filings by Alaska Communications Systems Group, Inc. (“ACS Group” or the “Company”) on Forms 10-K, 10-Q and 8-K and future oral and written statements by the Company and its management may include certain “forward-looking statements” as defined under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, including (without limitation) statements with respect to anticipated future operating and financial performance, financial position and liquidity, growth opportunities and growth rates, pricing plans, acquisition and divestitive opportunities, business prospects, strategic alternatives, business strategies, regulatory and competitive outlook, investment and expenditure plans, financing needs and availability, and other similar forecasts and statements of expectation. Words such as “aims,” “anticipates,” “believes,” “could,” “estimates,” “expects,” “hopes,” “intends,” “may,” “plans,” “projects,” “seeks,” “should,” and “will,” and variations of these words and similar expressions, are intended to identify these forward-looking statements. These forward looking statements are subject to certain risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from our Company’s historical experience and our present expectations or projections. Forward-looking statements by the Company and its management are based on estimates, projections, beliefs and assumptions of management and are not guarantees of future performance. The Company disclaims any obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statement based on the occurrence of future events, the receipt of new information, or otherwise.

     Actual future performance, outcomes and results may differ materially from those expressed in forward-looking statements made by the Company and its management as a result of a number of important factors. Examples of these factors include (without limitation) rapid technological developments and changes in the telecommunications industries; ongoing deregulation (and the resulting likelihood of significantly increased price and product/service competition) in the telecommunications industry as a result of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (the “1996 Act”) and other similar federal and state legislation and the federal and state rules and regulations enacted pursuant to that legislation; regulatory limitations on the Company’s ability to change its pricing for communications services; the possible future unavailability of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (‘SFAS”) No. 71 to the Company’s wireline subsidiaries; and possible changes in the demand for the Company’s products and services. In addition to these factors, actual future performance, outcomes and results may differ materially because of other, more general, factors including (without limitation) changes in general industry and market conditions and growth rates; changes in interest rates or other general national, regional or local economic conditions; governmental and public policy changes; changes in accounting policies or practices adopted voluntarily or as required by accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America; and the continued availability of financing in the amounts, at the terms and on the conditions necessary to support the Company’s future business.

     Investors should also be aware that while ACS Group does, at various times, communicate with securities analysts, it is against the Company’s policy to disclose to them any material non-public information or other confidential information. Accordingly, investors should not assume that ACS Group agrees with any statement or report issued by an analyst irrespective of the content of the statement or report. To the extent that reports issued by securities analysts contain any projections, forecasts or opinions, such reports are not the responsibility of ACS Group.

2

Table of Contents

Introduction

     ACS Group was formed in 1998 by Fox Paine & Company, members of the former senior management team of Pacific Telecom, Inc., and other experienced telecommunications industry executives. In May 1999, the Company acquired Century Telephone Enterprises, Inc.’s Alaska properties (“CenturyTel’s Alaska Properties”) and Anchorage Telephone Utility or ATU (collectively the “Predecessor Entities”). CenturyTel’s Alaska Properties were the incumbent provider of local telephone services in Juneau, Fairbanks and more than 70 rural communities in Alaska and provided Internet services to customers statewide. CenturyTel’s Alaska Properties included ACS of Fairbanks, Inc., ACS of Alaska, Inc., and ACS of the Northland, Inc. ATU was the largest local exchange carrier (“LEC”) in Alaska and provided local telephone and long distance services primarily in Anchorage and cellular services statewide. ATU provided long distance services through ATU Long Distance, Inc. and cellular services through MACtel, Inc. These companies are now known as ACS of Anchorage, Inc., ACS Long Distance, Inc. and ACS Wireless, Inc. On October 29, 1999, the Company changed its name from ALEC Holdings, Inc. to Alaska Communications Systems Group, Inc.

     The consolidated financial statements for ACS Group represent the operations principally of the following entities:

          •     Alaska Communications Systems Group, Inc.

          •     Alaska Communications Systems Holdings, Inc. (“ACS Holdings”)

          •     ACS of Alaska, Inc. (“ACSAK”)

          •     ACS of the Northland, Inc. (“ACSN”)

          •     ACS of Fairbanks, Inc. (“ACSF”)

          •     ACS of Anchorage, Inc. (“ACSA”)

          •     ACS Wireless, Inc. (“ACSW”)

          •     ACS InfoSource, Inc. (“ACSIS”)

          •     ACS Internet, Inc. (“ACSI”)

          •     ACS Long Distance, Inc. (“ACSLD”)

          •     ACS Television, L.L.C. (“ACSTV”)

     ACS Group is the leading diversified, facilities-based telecommunications provider in Alaska, offering local telephone, cellular, long distance, data and Internet services to business and residential customers throughout the state. ACS Group is the largest telecommunications provider in Alaska using its own network facilities to provide full service end-to-end communications to its customers.

     At various times, ACS Group evaluates opportunities for establishing or acquiring other telecommunications businesses through acquisitions or otherwise in Alaska and elsewhere in the United States, and may make investments in such businesses in the future. ACS Group has focused its attention on local telephone, cellular, directory, Internet, and interexchange businesses.

     Local Telephone. With over 330,000 access lines, representing approximately 68% of the access lines provisioned in Alaska, ACS Group is the largest LEC in Alaska and the 14th largest in the U.S. The Company provides service to most of the state’s major population centers, including Anchorage, Juneau and Fairbanks.

     Cellular. ACS Group is the largest and only statewide provider of cellular services in Alaska, currently serving approximately 80,000 subscribers. Its cellular network covers over 468,000 residents, including all major population centers and highway corridors. The Company has upgraded to a fully digital network in substantially all of its service areas.

     Directory. ACS Group, through its subsidiary ACSIS, is the largest provider of published directory advertising in Alaska. The Company serves approximately 12,000 advertisers through eight regional directories tailored to serve the needs of each of its local exchange markets. ACS Group also provides an online directory product and other specialized advertising vehicles to its customers.

3

Table of Contents

     Internet. ACS Group is the second largest provider of Internet access services in Alaska with over 46,000 customers. ACS Group offers dedicated and dial-up Internet access and digital subscriber line, (“DSL”) Internet access to its customers.

     Interexchange. ACS Group provides long distance and other interexchange services to over 65,000 customers in Alaska. ACS Group has migrated long distance traffic from leased circuits onto its own network infrastructure where possible, principally between its major markets of Anchorage, Fairbanks and Juneau.

     Other. ACS Group provides wireless cable television services in the Fairbanks and Anchorage service areas over UHF frequencies. ACS Group is evaluating opportunities to expand its offering of wireless cable television services.

Products, Services and Revenue Sources

     ACS Group offers a broad portfolio of telecommunications services to residential and business customers in its markets. The Company believes that, as the communications marketplace continues to converge and competition continues to enter the market, the ability to offer an integrated package of communications products will provide a distinct competitive advantage, as well as increase customer loyalty, and thereby decrease customer turnover. The Company complements its local telephone services by actively marketing its cellular, directory, Internet, interexchange and other service offerings.

     Profit or loss and total assets for each of the Company’s segments is disclosed in Note 15 “Business Segments” of the Alaska Communications Systems Group, Inc. Consolidated Financial Statements. The following table sets forth the components of ACS Group’s consolidated revenues for the years ended December 31, 2001 and December 31, 2000 and pro forma combined revenues for the year ended December 31, 1999 (dollars in millions). For the year ended December 31, 1999, the combined revenues represents the historical combined revenues of the Predecessor Entities— prior to their ownership by ACS Holdings, from January 1, 1999 through May 14, 1999, plus the consolidated results of ACS Holdings from May 15, 1999 through December 31, 1999.

     Local Telephone

     The Company provides local telephone service through its four LECs. Local telephone revenue consists of local network service, network access (including universal service revenue), and deregulated and other revenue, each of which is described below.

4

Table of Contents

     Local Network Service

     Basic Local Network Service. Basic local network service enables customers to originate and receive telephone calls within a defined “exchange” area. The Company provides basic local services on a retail basis to residential and business customers, generally for a fixed monthly charge. The maximum amount that can be charged to a customer for basic local services is determined by rate proceedings involving the Regulatory Commission of Alaska (“RCA”). The Company charges business customers higher rates to recover a portion of the costs of providing local service to residential customers, as is customary in the industry. On average, U.S. business rates for basic local services have been over two times the rates of residential customers. Basic local service also includes non-recurring charges to customers for the installation of new products and services and recurring charges for enhanced features such as call waiting and caller identification.

     At December 31, 2001, approximately 57% of ACS Group’s retail access lines served residential customers and 43% served business customers. Currently, monthly charges for basic local service for residential customers range from $9.42 to $16.30 in ACS Group’s service areas compared to the national average for urban areas of $13.70. Monthly charges for business customers range from $17.65 to $35.00 in ACS Group’s service areas compared to the national average for urban areas of $33.88. In November 2001, the Company was authorized by the RCA to increase on an interim basis certain rates in its largest market, Anchorage, by 24%. As a result, the Company increased residential service rates in Anchorage from $9.70 to $12.05 per month. See “Business — Regulation” for further discussion of regulatory matters including the Company’s local network service rate proceedings.

     The table below sets forth the annual growth in access lines for ACS Group and its Predecessor Entities from December 31, 1997 to December 31, 2001. The number of access lines shown for 1997 includes approximately 37,000 access lines that were acquired by CenturyTel’s Alaska Properties as part of its acquisition of the City of Fairbanks Telephone Operation in October 1997. The number of access lines shown represents all revenue producing access lines connected to both retail and wholesale customers.

     On June 1, 1999, as part of the consolidation of its operating and billing systems, ACS Group conformed the methodology by which the number of access lines is calculated across all of its local exchanges to that previously used for CenturyTel’s Alaska Properties. The Company intends to use the method used to calculate access lines in service for CenturyTel’s Alaska Properties to calculate its access lines in all future periods. In the table above, for the year ended December 31, 1999, the Company shows ATU’s number of access lines calculated using this method. If the number of ATU’s access lines in service at December 31, 1998 was computed under this same method, the number of access lines at ATU would increase by 4,940 and the total number of access lines would equal 305,334 and the combined growth percentage would be 7.8% for 1999. Due to limited data available to ACS Group, no adjustments to the access lines in service for 1997 have been computed.

     Management believes that future access line growth is dependent on among other things, the economic outlook in Alaska and the United States, the impact of technology and competition on line demand and population growth in the Company’s service areas.

     Competitive Local Network Service. The Company also provides interconnection through wholesale access to its basic local service and through leasing unbundled network elements (“UNEs”) to its competitors as required by the 1996 Act. Revenues for these services are included in local network service revenues. The Company provided 68,068 lines to competitors in the Anchorage service area on either a

5

Table of Contents

wholesale or UNE basis as of December 31, 2001. In November of 2001 the Company was authorized by the RCA to implement an interim and refundable rate increase of $1.07 per UNE loop for its Anchorage serving area, increasing the total rate to $14.92 from $13.85. The RCA has also lifted the Company’s rural exemption for the Fairbanks and Juneau serving areas and awarded interconnection rates to a competitor on a UNE basis of $19.19 and $16.71, respectively. The Company believes the UNE rates in place in all of its markets are below its embedded and forward looking cost and are therefore non-compensatory. As of December 31, 2001, the Company provided 3,853 lines to competitors in the Fairbanks service area on either a wholesale or UNE basis. The Company has not yet provided lines on either a wholesale or UNE basis to competitors in Juneau, although competition is expected in 2002. See “Business — Regulation” for further discussion of regulatory matters, including interconnection under the 1996 Act.

     While there is some seasonality in local network service, represented primarily by reduced line demand in the Alaskan winter as seasonal workers leave the state, operating results for local telephone services are not materially impacted by seasonal factors.

     Network Access

     Network access services arise in connection with the origination and termination of long distance, or toll, calls and typically involve more than one company in the provision of such long distance service on an end-to-end basis. Since toll calls are generally billed to the customer originating the call, a mechanism is required to compensate each company providing services relating to the call. This mechanism is the access charge, which the Company bills to each interexchange carrier for the use of its facilities to access the customer. The Company also receives universal service revenue, which it includes in its reported network access revenue. These components of network access revenue are described below.

     Intrastate Access Charges. ACS Group generates intrastate access revenue when an intrastate long distance call that involves an ACS Group LEC and an interexchange carrier is originated and terminated within the same state. The interexchange carrier pays the Company an intrastate access payment for either terminating or originating the call. The Company records the details of the call through its carrier access billing system and receives the access payment from the interexchange carrier. The Company also provides billing and collection (“B&C”) services for interexchange carriers through negotiated B&C agreements for certain types of toll calls placed by the Company’s local customers. ACS Group’s LECs in competitive areas are under their own stand-alone tariffs for intrastate access. In non-competitive areas, ACS Group’s LECs participate in a statewide tariff and access charge pooling arrangement that is administered by the Alaska Exchange Carriers Association (“AECA”). The access charge for ACS Group’s intrastate service is regulated by the RCA.

     Interstate Access Charges. ACS Group generates interstate access revenue when an interstate long distance call is originated from an Alaskan local calling area served by an ACS Group LEC and is terminated in a local calling area in another state, and vice versa. The Company bills interstate access charges in a manner similar to intrastate access charges. However, interstate access charges are regulated by the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) rather than the RCA. ACS Group’s LECs participate in a nationwide tariff and access charge pooling arrangement that is administered by the National Exchange Carrier Association (“NECA”) for all ACS Group’s LECs except ACSA. ACSA participates in the NECA common line tariff, but has its own interstate access tariff for traffic sensitive and special access services.

     Universal Service Revenue. Universal service revenue supplements the amount of local service revenue the Company receives to ensure that basic local service rates for customers in high cost rural areas are not significantly higher than rates charged in lower cost urban and suburban areas. The 1996 Act prescribed new standards applicable to universal service, including mechanisms for defining the types of services to be provided as part of a universal service program, specific goals or criteria applicable to universal service programs, new qualifications for receipt of universal service funding and new requirements for contributions to universal service funding. The FCC, in conjunction with a federal-state joint board composed of FCC and state commission members, has been working since passage of the 1996 Act to implement these new statutory provisions. The FCC has chosen to address universal service matters, initially for non-rural telephone companies, and subsequently for rural telephone companies. While new cost-identification models for non-rural local carriers were adopted effective on January 1, 2000, similar

6

Table of Contents

models for rural carriers were rejected by the FCC, leaving previous Universal Service Fund (“USF”) calculations in place. While the Joint Board and the FCC continue to examine modifications to the universal service funding mechanisms, it is unlikely that any changes will have a near-term impact on ACS Group’s revenue.

     Operating results for network access services are not materially impacted by seasonal factors.

     Deregulated and Other Revenue

     Deregulated and other revenues consist of B&C contracts, space and power rents, pay telephone service, customer premise equipment sales, and other miscellaneous revenues generated by the Company’s LECs. ACS Group seeks to capitalize on its local presence and network infrastructure by offering these additional services to customers and interexchange carriers. Deregulated and other revenue is generally not subject to seasonal impacts on operating results.

     Cellular

     ACS Group’s cellular business is currently managed separately from its LEC business and is subject to a different regulatory framework and cost structure. Cellular services are provided statewide under the ACS Wireless brand name. The primary sources of cellular revenue include subscriber access charges, airtime usage, toll charges, connection fees, roaming revenues, and enhanced features, such as caller identification and call waiting. A subscriber may purchase services separately or may purchase rate plans that package these services in different ways to fit different calling patterns and desired features.

     The table below sets forth the annual growth in the number of cellular subscribers served and total covered population for ACS Group and its Predecessor Entities from December 31, 1997 to December 31, 2001.

     Although ACS Group has achieved cellular penetration rates of approximately 17% in Anchorage, 19% in Fairbanks and 20% in the Kenai peninsula, penetration rates in the Company’s other service areas are significantly lower. Management believes there are opportunities to improve the penetration rates of its cellular operations in Southeastern Alaska, and in particular, Juneau. Management also believes that the market for cellular services will continue to grow with the expansion of the cellular industry as a whole.

     ACS Group also owns 10 megahertz E Block PCS licenses covering Anchorage, Fairbanks and Juneau which were purchased by CenturyTel’s Alaska Properties in 1997 and acquired by the Company when it purchased CenturyTel’s Alaska Properties on May 14, 1999. Management is analyzing the build out of these licenses and technical alternatives for using this spectrum to enhance the Company’s service offerings in its overall business.

     Cellular revenue declines in the winter months and increases in the summer months due to Alaska’s northern latitude and the wide swing in available daylight and changes in weather patterns between summer and winter and their effect on business, tourism and subscriber calling patterns. However, operating results for cellular services are not materially impacted by seasonal factors.

     Directory

     ACS Group is the largest provider of yellow page advertising directories in the State of Alaska. The Company currently publishes eight different books in its local telephone markets throughout the state. Directory advertising revenues are derived by ACS Group principally from yellow pages advertising in the

7

Table of Contents

local telephone books of each of the Company’s local exchange service areas. The Company provides this service under a contractual arrangement with a directory publishing company. Directory advertising is billed in conjunction with local telephone service under a B&C agreement. ACS Group competes for directory advertising services with at least one other publisher in substantially all of its service areas. Directory revenues are not materially effected by seasonality.

     Internet

     ACS Group provides Internet access services to approximately 46,000 customers as of December 31, 2001. In order to offer Internet access, the Company provides local dial-up telephone numbers for its customers. ACS Group also offers high speed DSL to its customers in its major LEC service territories. These local dial-up numbers and dedicated DSL connections allow customers access, through a modem connection on their computer, to a series of computer servers ACS Group owns and maintains. These servers allow customers to access their e-mail accounts and to be routed to local access points that connect customers to the Internet. ACS Group charges customers either a flat rate for unlimited Internet usage or a usage sensitive rate, which, in either case, can be billed on customers’ local telephone bills. Operating results for Internet access services are not materially impacted by seasonal factors.

     Interexchange

     Long Distance Services. ACS Group’s predecessors began offering long distance services on a resale basis in October 1997, primarily in Anchorage. The Company currently has approximately 65,000 long distance customers and less than 10% of total long distance revenues in Alaska. Before August 1998, CenturyTel’s Alaska Properties were precluded from entering the long distance business by a non-competition agreement with AT&T Alascom which was signed when Pacific Telecom sold Alascom, Inc. to AT&T in 1995.

     In April 1999, ACS Group entered into a settlement agreement with General Communication, Inc. (“GCI”) under which the Company agreed to enter into a number of new business arrangements and to settle a number of outstanding disputes, including GCI’s opposition to ACS Group’s acquisitions of CenturyTel’s Alaska Properties and ATU. As part of this agreement and to support other aspects of the Company’s business strategy, ACS Group purchased from GCI $19.5 million of fiber capacity for high-speed links within Alaska and for termination of traffic in the lower 49 states. Subsequently, the Company entered into an amendment to the purchase agreement with GCI, whereby, among other things, ACS Group agreed to purchase additional capacity for $19.5 million. The Company fulfilled this commitment to purchase additional capacity on January 12, 2001.

     ACS Group is subject to numerous conditions imposed by the RCA and, to a lesser degree, by the FCC on the manner in which the Company conducts its long distance operations. The restrictions are intended to prohibit cross-subsidization from the regulated LEC to the long distance affiliate and discrimination against other long distance providers in favor of a LEC’s long distance affiliate. Among the conditions applied to ACS Group’s long distance affiliate are those which:

	•		require the Company to hold all books and records, management, employees and administrative services separate, except that services may be provided among affiliates through arm’s length affiliated interest agreements,
	•		prohibit ACSA, ACSAK, ACSN and ACSF from bundling local and intra-state long distance services until competition develops in their local markets and
	•		prevent the Company from joint ownership of telephone transmission or switching facilities with the LEC and from using the LEC’s assets as collateral for its own indebtedness.

     Although there is some seasonal impact on customer usage patterns for long distance, operating results are not materially impacted by seasonal factors.

8

Table of Contents

     Other

     ACS Group owns ACSTV, a wireless cable television provider. ACSTV provides wireless cable television services over assigned UHF frequencies to approximately 1,900 customers in the Company’s Anchorage and Fairbanks service areas. ACS Group is evaluating opportunities to expand its offering of wireless cable television services.

Network Facilities

     As of December 31, 2001, ACS Group owned 66 host switches serving over 330,000 access lines. All of the Company’s access lines are served by digital switches provided predominately by Nortel Networks. ACS Group’s switches are linked through a combination of extensive aerial, underground and buried cable, including 640 sheath miles of fiber optic cable, as well as digital microwave and satellite links. The Company has 100% single-party services (one customer per access line), and believes substantially all of its major switches have current generic software upgrades installed, allowing for the full range of enhanced customer features.

     ACS Group has integrated numerous network elements to offer a variety of services and applications that meet the increasingly sophisticated needs of customers. These elements include Signal System 7 signaling networks, voice messaging platforms, digital switching, DSL and, in some communities, integrated service digital network access. As the telecommunications industry experiences significant changes in technology, customer demand and competition, the Company intends to introduce additional enhancements.

     Network operations and monitoring are provided by ACS Group’s network operating control center located in Anchorage. The network operating control center has technicians staffed seven days a week, 24 hours a day. The Company also has customer care call center facilities in Anchorage and Fairbanks along with additional customer care facilities in Juneau, Sitka, Kenai/Soldotna and Kodiak. All of these facilities offer extended business hours to efficiently handle customer inquiries and orders for service.

     ACS Group’s cellular operations consist of three digital switching centers, 94 cell sites and four repeaters covering substantially all major population centers and highway corridors in Alaska plus one analog switch and cell site covering Barrow, Alaska. The Company uses Ericsson switches and radios for its cellular operations. The Company’s switching and cell site infrastructure is linked by fiber and digital microwave. ACS Group’s network operating control center located in Anchorage also supports all cellular switches in ACS Group’s markets. Customer care centers are located in Anchorage, Fairbanks, Juneau and Kenai/Soldotna.

     The Company is enhancing its network to accommodate developing products and technology. The Company is working with Cisco Systems and other vendors to implement a Multi-Protocol Label Switching over Asynchronous Transfer Mode network or MPLS/ATM. ACS Group believes the implementation of an MPLS/ATM network will enhance its capability to provide a complete suite of converged telecommunications, data and video services and achieve significant operating efficiencies. The Company completed the first phase of the implementation in 2001. Core MPLS/ATM nodes were installed in Anchorage, Fairbanks, Kenai, Juneau and Seattle. ACS Group expects to complete the implementation of its MPLS/ATM network early in the second quarter of 2002.

     Completion of the MPLS/ATM network will enable the Company to provide an array of products and services over Internet Protocol or IP. ACS Group currently offers a variety of products and services and will be able to converge them all over its MPLS core network:

•		virtual private networks,
•		virtual private lines,
•		voice over IP services,
•		transparent local area networks (LAN),

9

Table of Contents

•		proprietary LANs and wide area networks (WAN),
•		high speed Internet access,
•		managed services,
•		video and
•		video conferencing.

Customers

     ACS Group has three basic types of customers for the services of its LECs:

	•		business and residential customers located in their local service areas that pay for local phone service,
	•		interexchange carriers that pay for access to long distance calling customers located within the Company’s local service areas and
	•		competitive local exchange carriers (“CLECs”) that pay for wholesale access to the Company’s network in order to provide competitive local service on either a wholesale or UNE basis as prescribed under the 1996 Act.

     Approximately 57% of ACS Group’s retail access lines served residential customers, while 43% served business customers.

     ACS Group also has approximately 80,000 cellular subscribers, 46,000 Internet subscribers and 65,000 long-distance subscribers consisting substantially of retail residential and business consumers.

     No single ACS Group customer represented more than 10% of its total 2001 consolidated revenue.

Competition

     Local Telephone Service

     Incumbent local exchange carriers (“ILECs”) may be subject to any of three types of competition:

	•		facilities-based competition from providers with their own local service network,
	•		resale competition from resale interconnection, or providers who purchase local service from the ILEC at wholesale rates and resell these services to their customers and
	•		competition from UNE interconnection, that is, providers who lease UNEs from the ILEC.

     The geographic characteristics of rural areas presently make the entrance of most facilities-based competitors uneconomical because of the significant capital investment required and the limited market size. Therefore, ACS Group believes competition is likely to come from resale interconnection or UNE interconnection. However, in the future, competition though other means, such as cable or wireless telephony may become economically feasible. There are no regional Bell operating companies in Alaska.

     In September 1997, GCI and AT&T Alascom, the two largest long distance carriers in Alaska, began providing competitive local telephone services in Anchorage. GCI competes principally through UNE interconnection with ACSA facilities, while AT&T Alascom competes primarily by reselling ACSA’s services. Competition is based upon price and pricing plans, types of services offered, customer service, billing services, and quality and reliability of service. GCI has focused principally on advertising discount plans for bundled services. AT&T Alascom’s strategy has been to resell ACSA’s service as part of a package of local and long distance services. As a result, ACSA now has approximately 43% competitive market penetration as of December 31, 2001. The Company expects GCI and AT&T Alascom to continue to compete for local telephone business.

10

Table of Contents

     As “rural telephone companies” under the 1996 Act, ACS Group’s rural LECs have historically been exempt from the obligation to lease their facilities or resell their services on a wholesale discount basis to CLECs seeking interconnection. However, on June 30, 1999 the Alaska Public Utilities Commission (“APUC”) ordered these exemptions terminated for certain rural service areas of ACS Group, and on October 11, 1999, the RCA, which replaced the APUC on July 1, 1999, sustained the APUC’s order. As a result, ACS Group’s rural LECs entered into interconnection arbitration with GCI. This arbitration resulted in arbitration agreements for certain rural service areas of ACS Group. See “Business — Regulation” for further discussion.

     In October 2000, the RCA approved interconnection agreements under the 1996 Act ACSF, ACSN and ACSAK and GCI for its Fairbanks and Juneau markets. Commencing in April 2001, the Company received its first orders for resale of local services in Fairbanks. As of December 31, 2001, ACS Group estimates that it now has approximately 90% market share in Fairbanks. Through December 31, 2001, GCI has competed in Fairbanks primarily through reselling ACSF and ACSN services, however, the Company expects GCI to compete in this market primarily through UNE interconnection in the future. ACSAK has experienced no competition in its Juneau market as of February 2002, although the Company anticipates competition in the future. While GCI claims the right to resell local service in portions of the ACSN territory, it has yet to place any orders to do so.

     ACS Group expects increasing competition from providers of various services that provide users the means to bypass its network. Long distance companies may construct, modify or lease facilities to transmit traffic directly from a user to a long distance company. Cable television companies also may be able to modify their networks to partially or completely bypass the Company’s local network.

     In addition, while cellular telephone services have historically complemented traditional LEC services, the Company anticipates that existing and emerging wireless technologies may increasingly compete with LEC services. For example, AT&T had introduced its fixed wireless product to the Anchorage market. Although AT&T’s fixed wireless product was subsequently abandoned, communications technology manufacturers continue to work on alternatives to traditional LEC service. At this time it is not possible to predict the impact of this product on the Company’s share of the local market. Technological developments in cellular telephone features, personal communications services, digital microwave and other wireless technologies are expected to further permit the development of alternatives to traditional wireline services.

     Cellular Services

     The wireless telecommunications industry is experiencing significant technological change, as evidenced by the increasing pace of improvements in the capacity and quality of digital technology, shorter cycles for new products and enhancements, and changes in consumer preferences and expectations. ACS Group believes that the demand for wireless telecommunications services is likely to increase significantly as equipment costs and service rates continue to decline and equipment becomes more convenient and functional. Competition is based on price, quality, network coverage, packaging features and brand reputation. In addition, there are six PCS licensees in each of the Company’s cellular service areas. ACS Group holds PCS licenses covering Anchorage, Fairbanks and Juneau. ACS Group currently competes with at least one other wireless provider in each of its cellular service areas, including AT&T Wireless Services, Alaska DigiTel, and Dobson Communications. At least one new wireless competitor is expected to enter the Alaska market in 2002. The Company believes that the unique and vast terrain and the high cost of PCS system buildout make entrance into markets outside Anchorage uneconomical at this time.

     As the market for simple cellular voice services approaches maturity, providers are experiencing downward pressure on price. ACS Group is positioning itself to offset this impact by bringing new higher margin services to market. By developing products for targeted market segments, the Company is leveraging the advantage in market share and geographical coverage to attract new customers and increase monthly revenues from existing customers. The Company continuously evaluates new service offerings in order to differentiate it from its competitors, produce additional revenues and increase margins.

11

Table of Contents

     Internet Services

     The market for Internet access services is highly competitive in most markets in the state. There are few significant barriers to entry, and the Company expects that competition will intensify in the future. ACS Group currently competes with a number of established online services companies, interexchange carriers, local exchange carriers with Internet subsidiaries, satellite service providers and cable television companies. The Company believes that its ability to compete successfully will depend upon a number of factors, including the reliability and security of its network infrastructure, the ease of access to the Internet, and the pricing policies of its competitors. During 2001, the Company continued to feature its DSL services in Anchorage, Fairbanks, Juneau, Kenai/Soldotna, Homer and Sitka, Alaska for both residential and business applications.

     Long Distance Services

     The long distance telecommunications market is highly competitive. Competition in the long distance business is based primarily on price, although branding, customer service, billing services and quality play a role in customer’s choices to some extent. The Company currently offers long distance service to customers located primarily in the more populous communities within its service territory. AT&T Alascom and GCI are currently the two major competing long distance providers in Alaska. The Company currently has less than 10% of total long distance revenues in Alaska. The Company provides traditional “1+” direct distance dialing (DDD), toll-free services, calling cards and private line services for data and voice applications. In Spring 2001, the Company discontinued its long distance “Infinite Minutes” program, and introduced several new flat-fee programs marketed as “Easy Choices.” The new programs allow customers to purchase interstate minutes of use in blocks of time for a single monthly fee. ACS Group expects to continue offering innovative products of this nature in the future.

Sales and Marketing

     The Predecessor Entities have historically conducted their sales and marketing operations for each of their respective products on a stand-alone basis, with each product line having its own sales force and marketing department. ACS Group has consolidated its product and service offerings under the “Alaska Communications Systems” and “ACS” brands, subject to regulatory and strategic business considerations.

     Key components of the Company’s sales and marketing strategy include:

	•		establishing name recognition of the ACS brand across all product and service offerings,
	•		marketing current and future service offerings aggressively,
	•		providing simplified packaged service offerings,
	•		centralizing marketing functions,
	•		improving quality, reliability and customer service,
	•		developing and delivering to the market new products and services in line with strategic goals, and
	•		enhancing direct sales efforts.

     ACS Group believes that it can leverage its position as an integrated, one-stop provider of telecommunications services with strong positions in local access, cellular, directory, Internet, and interexchange long distance and data markets. By pursuing, within the bounds of any applicable regulatory constraints, a marketing strategy that takes advantage of these characteristics and that facilitates cross-selling and packaging of its products and services, the Company believes it can increase penetration of new product offerings, improve customer retention rates, increase its share of its customers’ overall telecommunications expenditures, and achieve continued revenue and operating cash flow growth.

     ACS Group has begun, to a limited extent, within regulatory bounds, marketing local telephone services in attractively priced, packaged service offerings with cellular, long distance and Internet services. ACS Group believes packaged offerings are popular with customers because they allow customers to enjoy

12

Table of Contents

pricing for a number of services at a substantial discount to a la carte pricing of individual services. Subject to regulatory limitations, the Company intends to expand this strategy, which it expects will increase the average revenue per customer, and result in a more loyal and satisfied customer base and in reduced churn.

     The Company has established a sales and marketing organization where marketing strategies are centralized and sales functions are based locally. To enhance its direct selling efforts, the Company has established additional customer and retail service centers in its larger service areas, such as Juneau and Kenai/Soldotna, and intends to enhance its call center operations through a combination of technology investments, training, and incentive compensation programs for call center employees.

Employees

     ACS Group considers employee relations to be good. As of December 31, 2001, the Company employed a total of 1,168 regular full-time employees, 924 of whom were represented by the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 1547 (“IBEW”). On November 2, 1999, the IBEW membership for ACS Group ratified the terms of a master collective bargaining agreement that governs the terms and conditions of employment for all IBEW represented employees working for ACS Group in the State of Alaska. The master agreement embraces a labor-management relationship that is founded on trust, cooperation and shared goals. The November 1999 agreement, which expires December 31, 2006, provides for wage increases up to 4% in specified years based on the annual increases in the consumer price index for Anchorage as reported by the U.S. Department of Labor CPI-U. The last wage increase under the agreement was implemented in July 2001 and the next scheduled wage review is in January 2003. The master agreement also limits ACS Group’s health and welfare contributions for represented employees to 4% annually. There have been no work stoppages or strikes, and none are anticipated.

     ACS Group also enjoys good relations with the non-represented employee group. Non-represented employees qualify for wage increases based on individual and Company performance, and key employees are also eligible for performance-based incentives and equity compensation. Additionally, ACS Group provides a total benefits package, including health, welfare, and retirement components, that is competitive in ACS Group’s market.

13

Table of Contents

Regulation

     Overview

     The Company’s local telephone operating subsidiaries, ACSA, ACSF, ACSAK, and ACSN, are each “telecommunications carriers” and ILECs under the Communications Act of 1934 (the “Communications Act”), which was amended by the 1996 Act, and are subject to the jurisdiction of the FCC and the RCA. ACSLD, ACS Group’s long distance subsidiary, is also subject to both the FCC and RCA’s regulatory jurisdiction. ACS Group’s cellular and PCS companies are also subject to FCC jurisdiction because they are telecommunications carriers and because they hold FCC-issued licenses.

     Federal Regulation

     Under the federal regulatory scheme, ILECs are required to comply with the Communications Act and the applicable rules and regulations of the FCC. In substantially overhauling the Communications Act, the 1996 Act was intended to, among other things, eliminate unproductive regulatory burdens and promote competition. Despite this, telecommunications carriers are still subject to extensive ongoing regulatory requirements. For instance, ACS Group’s ILEC subsidiaries are required to maintain accounting records in accordance with the Uniform System of Accounts, to structure interstate access charges according to FCC rules, and to charge for interstate services at a rate of return not to exceed a rate prescribed by the FCC. The FCC also must give prior consent to transfers of control and assignments of radio frequency licenses. The FCC requires ILECs providing interstate access services to file tariffs with the FCC reflecting the rates, terms and conditions of those services. These tariffs are subject to review and potential objection by the FCC or third parties. Additionally, all of the Company’s LECs are “ILECs” within the meaning of the 1996 Act. As such, they are subject to various additional requirements under the 1996 Act, including specific interconnection duties such as providing requesting telecommunications carriers with UNEs and wholesale discounted end user services for resale.

     As of 2001, long distance companies are precluded from filing tariffs for interstate domestic services. Similar detariffing of international services will be implemented in early 2002. Federal tariffing has been replaced with Internet web site posting of offers, terms and prices. ACSLD’s interstate services were fully detariffed prior to the end of 2000.

     State Regulation

     Telecommunications companies subject to the RCA’s jurisdiction are required to obtain certificates of public convenience and necessity prior to operating as a public utility in Alaska. The RCA is responsible for approving new certificates and any transfers of existing certificates. In addition, the RCA is responsible for implementing a portion of the competitive requirements of the 1996 Act, as well as for regulating intrastate access and rates for local and other services of local telephone companies. After passage of the 1996 Act, the RCA’s predecessor, APUC, adopted a plan to address competition issues across Alaska. The APUC established multiple dockets to investigate different competition-related issues, including revising local and long distance market structures, reforming its intrastate access charge system and establishing a state universal service fund. In addition to its preliminary actions to mandate access charge depooling for ILECs operating in competitive markets, the RCA made operational the new Alaska Universal Service Fund (“AUSF”). In a subsequent rulemaking, the RCA revised its eligibility standards for companies receiving high-cost switching support from the AUSF. These new rules resulted in a loss of support to ACS Group’s rural affiliates. Rather than seeking interim local relief for this cost recovery shift, ACS Group has opted to include consideration of this issue in the more comprehensive rate proceedings described below.

     In connection with regulatory approval of ACS Group’s acquisitions of CenturyTel’s Alaska Properties and ATU in 1999, the APUC imposed several conditions on its operating companies. Among those conditions was a requirement that ACSA, ACSF, ACSAK, and ACSN each file revenue requirement, cost of service and rate design studies no later than July 2001. All of these companies except ACSF were also required to file updated depreciation analyses concurrently with the rate case filings. The revenue requirement studies were subsequently bifurcated from the cost of service and rate design studies. In

14

Table of Contents

conformance with RCA orders, all revenue requirement studies and testimonies have been filed. Following a hearing and decisions as to revenue requirements, the companies will file their cost of service and rate design studies and testimony. In addition, restrictions were placed on the ability of ACS Group’s LECs to bundle service offerings with ACSLD.

     Having secured both LEC certification and interconnection agreements to serve the local exchange markets in Juneau and Fairbanks, Alaska, and numerous smaller communities in Alaska, GCI’s CLEC operation has been designated an “Eligible Telecommunications Carrier” (“ETC”) by the RCA for Juneau, Fairbanks and Fort Wainwright. ETC designation is an essential first step in securing “portable” or shared universal service support. ACS Group’s operating companies are currently designated as ETCs in the same markets for which GCI has received this designation.

     Under existing FCC regulations, ILECs may seek, through filings with state commissions, the disaggregation of study areas into multiple zones for purposes of universal service support. The ACS Group of companies currently receiving such support are reviewing opportunities for such disaggregation and may file such plans during 2002.

     Cost Recovery and Revenue Recognition

     As a regulated common carrier, the operating subsidiary companies of ACS Group have the right to an opportunity to set maximum rates at a level that allows the Company to recover the reasonable costs incurred in the provision of regulated telecommunications services and to earn a reasonable rate of return on the investment required to provide these services.

     These costs are recovered through:

	•		monthly charges to end users for basic local telephone services and enhanced service offerings,
	•		access charges to interexchange carriers for originating and terminating interstate and intrastate interexchange calls, along with an end-user access charge referred to as a Subscriber Line Charge
	•		interconnection charges, wholesale service charges, UNE charges, and other rates to competing carriers interconnecting with the Company’s networks or reselling its services and
	•		high-cost support mechanisms, such as the federal Universal Service Fund and the AUSF.

     In conjunction with the recovery of costs and establishment of rates for regulated services, a LEC must first determine its aggregate costs and then allocate those costs between regulated and nonregulated services. After identifying the regulated costs of providing local telephone service, a LEC must allocate those costs between state and federal jurisdictions and among its various interstate and intrastate services. This process is complicated by the necessity to allocate specific pieces of plant and equipment to a particular service because a LEC’s plant and equipment are utilized for different jurisdictional services, such as local telephone and interstate and intrastate access. This process is referred to as “separations” and is governed primarily by the FCC’s rules and regulations. The underlying legal purpose of separations rules is to define how a carrier’s expenses are allocated and recovered from federal and state jurisdictions. The FCC is considering whether to modify or eliminate the current separations process. This decision could indirectly increase or reduce earnings of carriers subject to separations rules by reallocating costs between the federal and state jurisdictions. However, maximum rates for regulated services and the amount of high-cost support are set by the FCC with respect to interstate services and by the RCA with respect to intrastate services.

     Interstate End-User Rates

     The deployment of the local telephone network from the switching facility to the customer is known as the “local loop” and is one of the most significant costs incurred by a LEC in providing telephone service. The FCC has established a rate structure that provides for the recovery of a portion of the cost of the local loop allocated to the interstate jurisdiction directly from the end user customer through the

15

Table of Contents

assessment of a subscriber line charge. The remaining portion of the local loop costs are recovered from interstate access charges to an interexchange carrier or, in some circumstances, from the federal Universal Service Fund. The FCC recently increased the cap for subscriber line charges assessed by the Company’s LECs as part of a comprehensive review of its rules that also lowered carrier-paid interstate access charges and created explicit universal service support for interstate-allocated local loop costs.

     As a result of the market and geographic conditions in rural areas, the costs of providing local loop and switching services are often higher than in urban areas. In the absence of an accommodation in the FCC rules to address this fact, a substantial portion of the costs of smaller LECs would remain allocated to the intrastate jurisdiction placing substantial pressure on such carriers to charge higher rates for intrastate services. Accordingly, the FCC provides for additional interstate cost recovery by eligible telecommunications carriers through the federal Universal Service Fund. The federal Universal Service Fund is available to carriers whose local loop costs are significantly above the national average as calculated pursuant to FCC rules. Recent FCC rulings have made this high-cost support available to a competitive carrier, on an averaged per line basis, for those lines serving customers switching to the competitive carrier. See “Promotion of Universal Service,” below.

     Interstate Access Rates

     Interstate access rates are developed on the basis of a LEC’s measurement of its interstate costs for the provision of access service to interexchange carriers divided by its projected demand for access service. The resulting rates are published in a company’s interstate access tariff and filed with the FCC, at which time they are subject to challenge by third parties and to review by the FCC.

     The FCC recognized that this rate making and tariff filing process may be administratively burdensome for small LECs. Accordingly, the FCC established NECA, in 1983 to, among other things, develop common interstate access service rates, terms and conditions. NECA develops interstate access rates on the basis of data that are provided individually by participating LECs and blended to yield average rates. These rates are intended to generate revenue equal to the aggregate costs plus a return on the investment of all of the participants. Currently, the authorized maximum rate of return used in setting interstate access rates is 11.25%.

     On August 24, 2000, GCI filed a formal complaint with the FCC under various provisions of the Communications Act (as amended), alleging that ACSA (formerly known as ATU) exceeded its federally authorized rates of return related to the 1997-1998 monitoring period. The principal issue raised in the complaint focuses on the proper jurisdictional recognition (federal versus state) of minutes of use associated with Internet service provider traffic. On January 24, 2001, the FCC issued an order finding for GCI on the matter and ordering the Company to pay GCI approximately $2.7 million plus interest. The Company has filed an appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and the FCC issued a stay concerning the obligation to pay GCI during the pendency of the appeal. The Company believes it has adhered to applicable legal requirements and is actively defending its position, but cannot predict the ultimate outcome of the proceedings. Amounts potentially refundable under the FCC’s order are fully reserved at December 31, 2001. GCI has also raised the same issues for the subsequent 1999-2000 monitoring period, the resolution of which will be determined by the outcome of the pending appeal of the FCC’s decision concerning the 1997-1998 monitoring period.

     Individual participating LECs are likely to have costs of providing service that are either higher or lower than the revenues generated by applying the overall NECA tariff rate. To rectify this result, the revenues generated by applying the NECA rates are pooled from all of the participating companies and redistributed on the basis of each individual company’s costs. The result of this process not only eliminates the burden of individual tariff filing, but also produces a system in which small companies can share and spread risk. For example, if a smaller LEC filed its own tariff and subsequently suffered the loss of major customers that utilize interstate access service, the LEC could suffer significant under-recovery of its costs. In the NECA pool environment, the impact of this loss is reduced because it is spread over all of the pool participants.

16

Table of Contents

     NECA operates separate pools for traffic sensitive costs, which are primarily switching costs, and non-traffic sensitive costs, which are primarily loop costs. Companies are also free to develop and administer their own interstate access charges if the choose not to participate in the pools. ACS Group’s rural LECs participate in both the traffic sensitive and non-traffic sensitive NECA pools. ACSA files its own traffic sensitive access tariffs with the FCC but participates in the NECA non-traffic sensitive pool.

     On October 26, 2000, the FCC granted the petition of a subsidiary of ACS Group, ACSA (previously filed under the name of ATU), seeking a waiver of certain federal access charge rules. The effect of the waiver is to permit ACSA pricing flexibility through the ability to offer term and volume discount pricing in connection with its switched access services. The FCC waiver was granted, in part, upon findings concerning the level of competition in the Anchorage marketplace, as demonstrated in the record of the proceedings.

     End User Local Rates

     The levels of rates charged to end-users for the provision of basic local service are generally subject to rate-of-return regulation administered by the RCA. Local rates have historically been set at a level that will allow recovery of embedded costs for local service divided by the number of services and customers. Competitive forces, however, may prevent local rates from being sufficient to recover costs for local service in the future. Recognized costs include an allowance for a rate of return on investment in plant used to provide local service. Rate cases are typically infrequent, carrier-initiated and require the carrier to meet substantial burdens of proof. The last APUC-authorized rates of return were 12.55% and 11.70% for ACSAK and ACSN, respectively. These rates were ordered in 1989. ACSA’s last authorized rate of return was 8.97% for retail local exchange and 10.85% for intrastate access, ordered in 1991. ACSF was previously not regulated by the APUC and instead was regulated by the City of Fairbanks Public Utilities Board. As a condition of the acquisition of the City of Fairbanks Telephone Operation by a predecessor company, the APUC required that a general rate proceeding be initiated for ACSF by June 1999. This proceeding has been delayed and combined with revenue requirement studies filed by all ACS Group’s affiliate LECs on July 1, 2001. A hearing commenced on the revenue requirement for these LECs on March 4, 2002. After a decision is rendered on the LEC’s revenue requirements, the LECs will file cost of service and rate design studies and testimony and have a second hearing that will result in adjudicated rates. In the meantime, the RCA, on November 15, 2001, approved an interim and refundable rate increase for ACSA of 24% for most services.

     Competitive Local Exchange Regulations

     The former APUC adopted regulations to govern competition in the local exchange marketplace. The transitional regulations provide for, among other things:

	•		initial classification of all ILECs, including the Company’s rural properties and ACSA, as dominant carriers,
	•		symmetrical requirements that all carriers, both dominant and nondominant, offer all retail services for resale at wholesale rates,
	•		substantial dominant carrier pricing flexibility in competitive areas, under which carriers may reduce retail rates, offer new or repackaged services and implement special contracts for retail service upon 30 days’ notice. Only rate increases affecting existing services are subject to full cost support showings for LECs in areas with local competition and
	•		application limited initially to the ACSA market, and in February 2002, extended to the ACSF market. ACSAK and ACSN anticipate filing petitions with the RCA to extend application upon the commencement of facilities-based competition.

     Intrastate Access Rates

     In the past, the APUC had required all local companies in Alaska to pool their access costs and has set an annual statewide average price for access service. Each LEC charges interexchange carrier fees for originating or terminating long distance calls on its network based on the statewide average cost of access

17

Table of Contents

rather than on its individual costs of access. Access revenues are collected in a pool administered by the AECA and then redistributed to the LECs based on their actual costs. With the passage of the 1996 Act and increased competition in the local exchange market, the APUC began a process of reforming intrastate access charges.

     Under recent revisions to the Alaska access system, LECs not yet subject to local competition continue to participate in the AECA pool. Participants in this pool recover their costs based on the embedded cost of services most recently authorized by the RCA. In the event of competitive entry into a dominant incumbent carrier’s service area, these revisions also require the dominant LEC to exit the pool and initiate separate access charge tariffs. Dominant LECs subjected to competitive entry have the right to propose that their access charges be based on market rates. The RCA is currently advancing a proceeding to examine whether changes to the current annual process for establishing access charges are warranted. The RCA issued a new access charge reform Notice of Inquiry in early 2001 which will target further substantive changes in access charge derivation.

     An additional consequence of this access reform is the continued removal of subsidies implicit in access pricing. The RCA, for example, has adopted regulations which limit switching support to local companies with access lines of 20,000 or less. This change has reduced the amount of AUSF which the Company’s rural LECs receive and the resulting cost recovery shift will be addressed in the local service rate cases commenced in 2001.

     The AUSF serves as a complement to the federal Universal Service Fund, but must meet federal statutory criteria concerning consistency with federal rules and regulations. Currently, the AUSF subsidizes a portion of higher cost carriers’ switching costs, and the costs of lifeline service, which supports rates of low income customers. Recent proposals have targeted the AUSF as a source of funding for cost shifts that are likely to occur as a result of in-state access charge reform. It is unclear the degree to which the AUSF might be used to absorb cost shifts that result if federal universal service support is scaled back in the future.

     The Telecommunications Act of 1996

     Among other things, the 1996 Act was enacted to enhance competition without jeopardizing the availability of nationwide universal service at affordable rates. These two objectives have resulted in a complex set of rules intended to promote competitive entry in the provision of local telephone services except where entry would adversely affect the provision of universal service or the public interest.

     Promotion of Local Service Competition and Rural Exemptions

     The 1996 Act made competitive entry into the local telephone business more attractive to other carriers by removing barriers to competition. In order to promote competition, the 1996 Act established new interconnection rules generally requiring LECs to allow competing carriers to interconnect with their local networks. Congress recognized, however, that when the desire to promote competition conflicted with the ability of existing carriers to provide universal service to higher cost customers, LECs classified as “Rural Telephone Companies” should be exempted from interconnection requirements until the continuation of the exemption was no longer required by the public interest, as defined in the 1996 Act.

     Under the 1996 Act, all LECs, including both ILECs and new competitive carriers, are required to:

	•		offer reasonable and nondiscriminatory resale of their telecommunications services,
	•		ensure that customers can keep their telephone numbers when changing carriers,
	•		ensure that competitors’ customers can use the same number of digits when dialing and receive nondiscriminatory access to telephone numbers, operator service, directory assistance and directory listing,
	•		provide access to telephone poles, ducts, conduits and rights of way, to the extent required by the Communications Act, and

18

Table of Contents

•

compensate competitors for the costs of transporting and terminating telecommunications traffic.

     The 1996 Act also requires ILECs to:

	•		negotiate in good faith the terms and conditions of interconnection with any competitive carrier making a request for same,
	•		interconnect their facilities and equipment with any requesting telecommunications carrier at any technically feasible point,
	•		unbundle and provide nondiscriminatory access to UNEs, such as local loops, switches and transport facilities, at nondiscriminatory rates and on nondiscriminatory terms and conditions, unless such carriers are exempt as rural telephone companies,
	•		offer resale interconnection at wholesale rates,
	•		provide reasonable notice of changes in the information necessary for transmission and routing of services over the ILEC’s facilities or in the information necessary for interoperability and
	•		provide for the physical collocation of equipment necessary for interconnection or access to UNEs at the premises of the ILEC, at rates, terms and conditions that are just, reasonable and nondiscriminatory.

     In order to implement interconnection requirements, ILECs generally enter into negotiated interconnection arrangements with competing carriers. ILECs may also offer interconnection tariffs, available to all competitors.

     Competitors are required to compensate a LEC for the cost of providing interconnection services. In the case of resale interconnection, the rules provide that the rates charged should be on a wholesale basis and reflect the current retail rates of the ILEC, excluding the portion of costs avoided by the ILEC. In the case of UNE interconnection, rates are based on costing methodologies that employ a forward-looking economic cost pricing methodology known as Total Element Long Run Incremental Cost (“TELRIC”).

     On January 25, 1999, in AT&T Corp. et al. v. Iowa Utilities Board et al. 525 U.S. 366 (1999), the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the FCC’s authority to develop national pricing guidelines, but the Supreme Court did not evaluate the substance of these rules. Some ILECs argued that the FCC improperly placed upon them the burden of proof in rural exemption proceedings and improperly defined the meaning of the term “not unduly economically burdensome” as used in the 1996 Act. In addition, some ILECs argued that the FCC’s forward-looking TELRIC pricing methodology does not allow adequate compensation for the provision of UNEs.

     On July 18, 2000, in Iowa Utilities Board, et al. v. Federal Communications Commission 219 F.3d 744 (8th Cir. 2000) (“Iowa II”), the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals ordered some of these FCC rules to be vacated on the grounds they were inconsistent with the 1996 Act. The Eighth Circuit said the FCC’s rural exemption rules were contrary to the plain language of the 1996 Act. On March 5, 2001, the ACS Group’s rural LECs petitioned the FCC to adopt a new national rule consistent with the Iowa II decision, placing the burden of proof on CLECs in proceedings to terminate a company’s rural exemption. On August 27, 2001, the FCC denied the petition, explaining it was unnecessary as the FCC is already bound by the Iowa II decision. The ACS Group rural companies requested reconsideration of that decision on September 26, 2001 and the matter is still pending.

     As to the FCC’s TELRIC pricing methodology, the Eighth Circuit in Iowa II upheld the use of a forward-looking economic model but vacated the FCC’s rule requiring the pricing model to assume a hypothetical network based upon the most efficient technology currently available and the lowest cost network configuration.

     On September 22, 2000, the Eighth Circuit stayed that portion of its mandate which vacated the FCC hypothetical network rule (set out at 47 C.F.R. §51.505(b)(1)). This suspension was ordered by the Court to permit parties to the proceeding to seek review of its Iowa II decision by the U.S. Supreme Court.

19

Table of Contents

On January 22, 2001, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the Eighth Circuit’s decision requiring the FCC to vacate its hypothetical network rule. The Eighth Circuit did not suspend other portions of its decision, including those portions vacating FCC rules addressing the “rural exemption” provisions of 47 U.S.C. §251(f)(1), and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review the Eighth Circuit’s rural exemption decision.

     Subsequent to staying its mandate concerning the hypothetical network rule, on January 8, 2001, the Eighth Circuit, in Southwestern Bell v. Missouri Public Service Commission, 2001 W.L. 13289 (8th Cir. 2001), vacated an interconnection agreement approved by the Missouri PSC on the grounds that it relied on the hypothetical network rule that the Eighth Circuit had previously found invalid. The Eighth Circuit, in that case, specifically held that despite staying its mandate in Iowa II, all interconnection agreements must be based on use of a pricing methodology that is consistent with the court’s ruling in Iowa II.

     The 1996 Act also specifies that resale and UNE rates are to be negotiated among the parties, or, if the parties fail to reach an agreement, arbitrated by the relevant state regulatory commission. Once the parties have come to agreement, the proposed rates are subject to final approval by the state regulatory commission.

     In January 1997, ACSA’s predecessor, ATU, entered into an interconnection agreement with GCI, which provides for resale and UNE interconnection, and with AT&T Alascom, which provides for resale interconnection. Neither interconnection agreement contained a defined term or a termination date. Near the end of 1999, the Company notified GCI and AT&T of its view that the interconnection agreements pertaining to ACSA had reached the end of a reasonable period of availability. In January of 2000, the Company filed a motion with the RCA to reopen the original GCI arbitration proceedings involving ACSA for the purpose of establishing an appropriate forward looking cost model and the re-pricing various interconnection services and UNEs in the Anchorage market. The RCA subsequently granted the essence of the Company’s motion and has reopened the docket for such purposes. No action was taken in 2000. On October 25, 2001, the RCA granted ACSA an interim UNE rate increase of $1.07, bringing the UNE rate up from $13.85 to $14.92. The Company expects the RCA to hold hearings and adjudicate final Anchorage UNE rates during 2002.

     Certain of ACS Group’s local operating utilities, ACSAK, ACSN, and ACSF, are defined as “rural telephone companies” under the 1996 Act. As rural telephone companies, they were granted rural exemptions from the requirements relating to both resale interconnection and UNE interconnection. The rural exemptions were to continue until the APUC or the RCA determined that interconnection was technically feasible, not unduly economically burdensome and consistent with the 1996 Act’s universal service provisions.

     On June 30, 1999, the APUC issued an order terminating the rural exemptions of ACSN, ACSAK and ACSF. On October 11, 1999, the RCA affirmed the APUC’s order. As a result, these rural LECs are no longer exempt from the 1996 Act’s interconnection requirements applicable to ILECs, and the Company’s competitors immediately requested interconnection agreements.

     Separately, on September 1, 1999, ACS Group filed petitions with the RCA seeking suspension or modification of interconnection duties and addressing market structure reforms for the Fairbanks and Juneau-Douglas markets. In those petitions, the Company’s rural LECs proposed tariffed terms and conditions, including pricing, for resale of their services at wholesale discounts, for certain UNEs, and for the interconnection of their facilities and those of CLECs in the Fairbanks and Juneau-Douglas markets, effective January 1, 2000. Further, as part of that proposal, ACS Group also requested that the RCA permit its LECs to operate subject to competitive regulation and that the RCA remove or reduce other regulatory limitations in those markets, effective January 1, 2001. Subsequently, on October 26, 1999, the RCA dismissed the Company’s petitions seeking to establish open competitive markets in Fairbanks and Juneau through tariffed interconnection terms and conditions.

     On November 10, 1999, the Company filed a formal appeal of the RCA’s order terminating the rural exemptions in the Alaska Superior Court. On November 12, 1999, the Company filed a parallel appeal

20

Table of Contents

of the RCA’s order dismissing its petitions for tariffed interconnection in the Alaska Superior Court. The issues in the case were fully briefed during the year 2000. The court denied the Company’s request to stay the RCA’s order terminating the rural exemptions on February 9, 2001 and subsequently upheld the RCA’s orders on November 26, 2001. The Company filed an appeal with the Alaska Supreme Court on December 26, 2001. Although ACS Group believes that the appeals are well founded, it cannot predict the timing and outcome of this litigation. The Company believes that the RCA’s order is inconsistent with the pronouncements of the Eighth Circuit and that tariffing terms and conditions for interconnection will promote more open competitive markets and thus eventually promote regulatory flexibility and/or reduced regulation.

     Subsequent to terminating the rural exemptions for the Fairbanks, Juneau-Douglas and ACSN’s Glacier State study area markets, the Company entered into unsuccessful negotiations for interconnection agreements with GCI. Interconnection issues, including the pricing for UNEs, were subject to an RCA arbitration during the year 2000. On September 5, 2000, the RCA issued orders largely ratifying the findings of the arbiter in these interconnection arbitration proceedings involving the Company and GCI. On September 25, 2000, the Company filed a protective appeal in the State Superior Court and a complaint in the Federal District Court for the District of Alaska, alleging various errors in the RCA orders. On October 5, 2000, the RCA issued final orders affirming the interconnection agreements arbitrated in these proceedings. Although ACS Group believes that its appeal and complaint are well founded, it cannot predict the timing and outcome of this litigation. The Company has and will continue to vigorously defend its proposed cost models and interconnection charges but it cannot be certain that it will be able to charge rates that provide fair compensation for providing UNEs and/or schedule discounted resale services.

     In 1999, the Company also received requests for interconnection from Alaska Fiber Star, L.L.C. (“AFS”). In 2000, the Company executed interconnection agreements with AFS with terms tied to the Company’s interconnection agreements with GCI. The Company expects other interconnection requests in the future as evidenced by the Anchorage interconnection request received from TelAlaska Long Distance, Inc. (“TALD”) on October 17, 2001. The RCA ordered ACSA to provide TALD with the terms and conditions set forth in the AFS agreement in February 2002.

     The rural exemption previously enjoyed by ACS Group’s ACSF, ACSAK and ACSN have been lifted by the RCA, with the exception of the Company’s Sitka study area within ACSN. The loss of the rural exemptions, absent compensating measures, such as rate increases or market structure reforms, including the replacement of implicit subsidies by explicit support mechanisms, rate deaveraging, or regulatory flexibility, could adversely affect the Company’s operating results.

     Promotion of Universal Service

     While the 1996 Act promoted Congress’ policy of ensuring that affordable service is provided to consumers universally in rural, high-cost areas of the country, the 1996 Act altered the framework for providing universal service by:

          •     providing for the identification of those services eligible for universal service support,

          •     requiring the FCC to make implicit subsidies explicit,

          •     expanding the types of communications carriers required to pay universal service contributions and

          •     allowing CLECs to be eligible for funding.

     These and other provisions were intended to make provision of universal service support compatible with a competitive market.

     Pursuant to the 1996 Act, federal Universal Service Fund payments are only available to carriers that are designated as eligible telecommunications carriers by a state public utilities commission. In areas served by rural LECs, the 1996 Act provides that a state public utilities commission may designate more than one eligible telecommunications carrier, in addition to the ILEC, only after determining that the designation of an additional eligible telecommunications carrier is consistent with the public interest. As a

21

Table of Contents

result, an incumbent rural LEC has an opportunity to maintain its status as the sole recipient of federal Universal Service Fund payments in its service area, even if it is subsequently subjected to competition. The RCA, however, has granted GCI’s request that it be designated an eligible telecommunications carrier in Fairbanks, Juneau, and Fort Wainwright, all of which are currently served by the Company’s subsidiaries. The addition of a second eligible telecommunications carrier in the service areas of ACS Group’s properties could have the effect of reducing the amount of funds available from the federal Universal Service Fund and could materially adversely affect the Company’s ability to achieve a reasonable rate of return on the capital invested in its network.

     The FCC has adopted new universal service rules for non-rural LECs, such as ACSA, effective January 1, 2000. These rules, like those previously in effect, provide no federal universal service fund support to ACSA.

     Rules for rural telephone companies are still being developed by the FCC, in consultation with a Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service (“Joint Board”). The RCA Chairman is a member of this Joint Board, and the Company’s remaining LEC subsidiaries are rural telephone companies as defined in the 1996 Act. On May 23, 2001, after considering recommendations from the Joint Board and a Rural Task Force formed to study universal service issues, the FCC issued rules that, for an interim period of five years, will: (1) increase the overall funding of the universal service support fund for high-cost rural carriers; (2) permit disaggregation of universal service support so that greater amounts of support would be targeted to the highest-cost areas the rural carrier serves; and (3) create additional support for significant investments in rural telecommunications plant and equipment.

     Because the operating subsidiary companies of ACS Group provide interstate and international services, they are required to contribute to the federal Universal Service Fund a percentage of their revenue earned from their interstate and international services. Although the Company’s rural LECs receive subsidies from the federal Universal Service Fund, they cannot be certain of how, in the future, the Company’s contributions to the fund will compare to the subsidies they receive from the fund.

     FCC Regulation of Wireless Services

     The FCC regulates the licensing, construction, operation, acquisition and sale of personal communications services and cellular systems in the United States. All cellular and personal communications services licenses have a 10-year term, at the end of which they must be renewed. Licenses may be revoked for cause, and license renewal applications may be denied if the FCC determines that renewal would not serve the public interest. In addition, all personal communications services licensees must satisfy certain coverage requirements. Licensees that fail to meet the coverage requirements may be subject to forfeiture of the license.

     The FCC restricts the amount of wireless spectrum that a single entity may hold in a market. Currently, the FCC’s rules prohibit an entity from holding more than 55 MHz of spectrum in any particular market, but this rule will sunset on January 1, 2003, at which time there will be no upper limit on the amount of commercial mobile radio service (CMRS) spectrum a single entity may hold.

     The Communications Act preempts state and local regulation of the entry of, or the rates charged by, any provider of commercial mobile radio service which includes personal communications services and cellular services and the FCC does not regulate such rates. The FCC imposes, however, a variety of additional regulatory requirements on commercial mobile radio service operators. For example, CMRS operators must be able to transmit 911 calls from any qualified handset without credit check or validation, are required to provide the location of the 911 caller, within an increasingly narrow geographic tolerance over time, and in the future, will be required to provide 911 service for individuals with speech and hearing disabilities.

22

Table of Contents

     FCC Regulation of Interstate Long Distance Services

     The Company’s interstate long distance services are currently not subject to rate regulation by the FCC, and the Company is not required to obtain FCC authorization for the installation, acquisition or replacement of its domestic interexchange network facilities. However, the Company must comply with the requirements of common carriage under the Communications Act. ACSLD is subject to the general requirement that its charges and terms for its telecommunications services be “just and reasonable” and that it not make any “unjust or unreasonable discrimination” in its charges or terms, as well as to a number of other requirements of the Communications Act and the FCC’s rules. The FCC has jurisdiction to act upon complaints against any common carrier for failure to comply with its statutory obligations, and it has recently levied substantial fines on carriers that have engaged in “slamming,” which is the industry term for unauthorized switching of a customer’s telecommunications service provider.

     In 1996, the FCC issued an order that required nondominant interexchange carriers, like ACSLD, to cease filing tariffs for its domestic interexchange services. The order required mandatory detariffing and gave carriers nine months to withdraw federal tariffs and move into contractual relationships with their customers. This order subsequently was upheld by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. As a result, all interstate interexchange carriers, including ACSLD, were required to detariff contract-type interstate, interexchange services by January 31, 2001, and were required to detariff interstate consumer long distance services by April 30, 2001. These rules also require ACSLD to post the rates, terms, and conditions of its service on its Internet web site, and engage in other public disclosure activities. The FCC has recently adopted rules that require nondominant international carriers to detariff international services. ACSLD timely complied with these FCC requirements.

     FCC Policy on Internet Services

     The 1996 Act establishes a distinction between telecommunications services, which are regulated by the FCC, and information services, which remain unregulated. ACS Group’s Internet services are considered information services and are not regulated by the FCC. Because the regulatory boundaries in this area are somewhat unclear and subject to dispute, however, the FCC could seek to characterize some of the Company’s information services as “telecommunications services.” If that happens, those services would become subject to FCC regulations. The impact of a reclassification of ACS Group’s Internet services is difficult to predict.

     In June 2000, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that AT&T’s high-speed Internet access service, delivered using cable television facilities, constituted both a “telecommunications” and an “information” service. In response to this holding, in September 2000, the FCC launched a proceeding to examine whether providers of high-speed Internet access over such cable facilities should be required to provide “open access” to their facilities to competing Internet service providers on a nondiscriminatory basis. If the FCC implements such a requirement, the Company may be able to supplement its own high-speed Internet access offerings by obtaining access to GCI’s high-speed Internet access cable lines for its own Internet service provider.

     Other Regulatory Proceedings

     In addition to the foregoing matters, a number of other FCC, state and judicial proceedings are currently pending or may be initiated in the future which could materially affect the Company’s business. Some of these proceedings include:

•

The 1996 Act placed statutory restrictions on the ability of telecommunications carriers to use and disclose certain types of customer information in marketing different types of services. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit has held that the FCC’s rule limiting the ILEC’s ability to do so without obtaining affirmative consent from the customer was an unconstitutional abridgment of the carrier’s freedom of speech. In June 2000, the United States Supreme Court denied a petition to review the Tenth Circuit’s decision. On September 7, 2001, the FCC released an order clarifying the requirements for a carrier to obtain customer consent to the use

23

Table of Contents

			of such information, including the use of procedures under which the customer must affirmatively request protection of this information.
	•		The FCC has adopted new rules designed to make it easier for customers to understand the bills of telecommunications carriers. These new rules, among other things, establish certain requirements regarding the formatting of bills and the information that must be included on bills. In response to several petitions for reconsideration, in March 2000, the FCC largely reaffirmed its rules.
	•		The FCC has adopted an order that requires telecommunications service providers to make their services accessible to individuals with disabilities, if readily achievable. It is unclear the effect that this order will have on ACS Group’s businesses.
	•		The FCC has ordered telecommunications service providers to provide law enforcement personnel with a sufficient number of ports and technical assistance in connection with wiretaps. In August 2000, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated portions of these FCC rules and remanded the matter to the FCC for further consideration. The FCC has not yet taken action on remand. The Company cannot predict its costs of complying with these rules at this time.
	•		The USA Patriot Act, signed into law in late 2001, imposes additional duties on the Company to make information available to law enforcement personnel.

     The foregoing is not an exhaustive list of proceedings that could materially affect ACS Group’s business. The Company cannot predict the outcome of these or any other proceeding before the FCC, the RCA or the courts.

Environmental Regulations

     ACS Group’s operations are subject to federal, state and local laws and regulations governing the use, storage, disposal of, and exposure to, hazardous materials, the release of pollutants into the environment and the remediation of contamination. As an owner or operator of property and a generator of hazardous wastes, the Company could be subject to environmental laws that impose liability for the entire cost of cleanup at contaminated sites, regardless of fault or the lawfulness of the activity that resulted in contamination. The Company believes, however, that its operations are in substantial compliance with applicable environmental laws and regulations.

     Many of ACS Group’s properties formerly contained, or currently contain, underground and above ground storage tanks used for the storage of fuel or wastes. Some of these tanks have leaked. The Company believes that known contamination caused by these leaks has been, or is being, investigated or remediated. The Company cannot be sure, however, that it has discovered all contamination or that the regulatory authorities will not request additional remediation at sites that have previously undergone remediation.

     ACS Group’s cellular and television operations are also subject to regulations and guidelines that impose a variety of operational requirements relating to radio frequency emissions. The potential connection between radio frequency emissions and negative health effects, including some forms of cancer, has been the subject of substantial study by the scientific community in recent years. To date, the results of these studies have been inconclusive. Although the Company has not been named in any lawsuits alleging damages from radio frequency emissions, it is possible it could be in the future, particularly if scientific studies conclusively determine that radio frequency emissions are harmful.

24

Table of Contents

Item 2. Properties

     At December 31, 2001, ACS Group’s telecommunications network includes over 640 sheath miles of fiber optic cable, over 189 switching facilities and a statewide cellular network. In addition, the Company purchased fiber capacity in May of 1999 and in January of 2001 for high-speed links within Alaska and for termination of traffic in the lower 49 states. The Company plans to continue enhancing its network to meet customer demand for increased bandwidth and advanced services. See “Business — Network Facilities.”

     Local Telephone. ACS Group’s primary local telephone properties consist of 189 switching facilities. The Company owns most of its administrative and maintenance facilities, customer service center, central office and remote switching platforms and transport and distribution network facilities. The Company’s local telephone assets are located in Alaska.

     ACS Group’s transport and distribution network facilities include a fiber optic backbone and copper wire distribution facilities that connect customers to remote switch locations or to the central office and to points of presence or interconnection with interexchange carriers. These facilities are located on land pursuant to permits, easements, right of ways or other agreements.

     Cellular. ACS Group has three cellular switches, 94 cell sites and four repeaters covering substantially all major population centers and highway corridors in Alaska plus one analog switch and cell site covering Barrow, Alaska. In most cases, the Company leases the land on which these sites are located.

     Internet. ACS Group has point of presence facilities in over 25 communities serving the majority of Alaska’s populated areas. These communities are linked over both owned and leased facilities to the Internet at Seattle, Washington.

     Interexchange. ACS Group is a facilities based interexchange carrier. The Company has invested in fiber optic capacity through an indefeasible right of use that provides bandwidth between the Company’s Anchorage, Fairbanks, and Juneau locations and Seattle, Washington. The Company also leases transport facilities and has arrangements with other interexchange carriers to terminate traffic in the lower 49 states.

     Substantially all of the Company’s assets (including those of its subsidiaries) are pledged as collateral for its senior obligations. See Note 7 “Long-term Obligations” to the Alaska Communications Systems Group, Inc. Consolidated Financial Statements for further discussion.

Item 3. Legal Proceedings

     The Company is involved in various claims, legal actions and regulatory proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business. In the opinion of management, the ultimate disposition of these matters will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

     Some of the legal proceedings involving regulatory matters are described under “Business — Regulation.” In addition, a class action lawsuit was filed against the Company on March 14, 2001. The litigation alleges various contract and tort claims concerning the Company’s decision to terminate its Infinite Minutes long distance plan. Although the Company believes this suit is without merit and intends to vigorously defend its position, it is impossible to determine at this time the actual number of plaintiffs or the claims that will actually continue to be in dispute.

Item 4. Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders

     There were no matters submitted to a vote of security holders during the fourth quarter of 2001.

25

Table of Contents

PART II

Item 5. Market for Registrant’s Common Equity and Related Stockholder Matters

     ACS Group’s common stock, $.01 par value, was first listed on the NASDAQ National Market on November 18, 1999 under the symbol “ALSK.” Prior to November 18, 1999, there was no public market for ACS Group’s Common Stock. The following table sets forth quarterly market price ranges for ACS Group’s Common Stock in 2001 and 2000:

     The approximate number of holders of record of Common Stock as of February 22, 2002 was 39. Management believes that actual holders exceed 1,500, including those held in the broker/dealers name on behalf of their clients.

Dividends

     ACS Group has never declared or paid any cash dividends on its common stock. The Company intends to retain its earnings, if any, to finance the development and expansion of its business, and, therefore, it does not anticipate paying any cash dividends in the foreseeable future. Moreover, the Company’s ability to declare and pay cash dividends on its common stock is restricted by covenants in its bank credit agreement and in the indentures governing its senior discount debentures and senior subordinated notes.

Stock Offerings

     During 1999 the Company issued 21,829,273 shares of stock under Rule 144 under the Securities Act of 1933. On May 14, 1999, the Company sold 20,082,871 shares of common stock to Fox Paine Capital, its affiliates and members of management for proceeds of $121.2 million, which was used, together with proceeds of debt issued, to acquire the Predecessor Entities. On May 14, 1999, the Company also issued detachable warrants which were convertible into 828,261 shares of common stock at an exercise price of $.01 per share to a lender in connection with the issuance of $25.0 million in senior discount debentures which was also used to fund the acquisitions. The warrants were converted in a roll-up transaction into 827,670 shares of stock on November 18, 1999 in connection with the Company’s initial public offering. Subsequent to the acquisitions and prior to its initial public offering, the Company also issued 1,746,402 shares of common stock to certain members of management and Cook Inlet Region, Inc. for proceeds of $10.4 million which was used to fund ACS Group’s capital expenditures.

     During 1999 ACS Group offered to the public 10,000,000 shares of its common stock. The effective date of the Company’s registration statement (File #333-88753) filed on Form S-1 under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, relating to ACS Group’s initial public offering of common stock was November 17, 1999. Goldman, Sachs & Co., Donaldson, Lufkin and Jenrette, CIBC World Markets, Deutsche Banc Alex. Brown, and Hambrecht & Quist led the underwriting syndicate. The offering commenced on November 18, 1999 and closed on November 23, 1999, resulting in aggregate gross

26

Table of Contents

proceeds of $140.0 million. ACS Group’s net proceeds from the offering were $127.9 million. Approximately $9.1 million of offering expenses was attributable to underwriting discounts.

     Proceeds of the offering were fully expended as of January 12, 2001. The proceeds were applied as follows:

	•		$10.6 million of the proceeds was used to retire 35% of the Company’s senior discount debentures, including a $1.3 million premium for early retirement,
	•		$25.0 million was used to repay outstanding obligations under the Company’s senior revolving credit facility and
	•		$92.3 million was used to fund capital expenditures and operations.

     On December 3, 1999 the Company registered 6,021,489 shares under various employee and non-employee stock option plans and an employee stock purchase plan (File # 333-92091) on Form S-8 under the Securities Act of 1933. As of March 18, 2002, 3,655,817 option grants are outstanding under the employee stock option plans and 435,838 options have been exercised and converted into shares of the Company’s common stock. As of March 18, 2002, 51,542 shares have been awarded under the non-employee stock plan, of which 31,719 were elected to be deferred. As of March 18, 2002, 217,569 shares have been issued under the employee stock purchase plan. See Note 13, “Stock Incentive Plans” to the Alaska Communications Systems Group, Inc. Consolidated Financial Statements for further discussion.

Item 6. Selected Financial Data

SELECTED HISTORICAL FINANCIAL DATA

     The following table sets forth selected historical consolidated financial data of ACS Group. Consider the following points in connection with the table:

	•		The selected historical consolidated operating data for the year ended December 31, 1999 represents the consolidated results of ACS Group from May 15, 1999 through December 31, 1999. Certain reclassifications have been made to the 1999 consolidated operations to conform to the current presentation of ACS Group’s consolidated operations.
	•		“EBITDA” is net income before interest expense, taxes on income, depreciation and amortization and extraordinary items. EBITDA is not intended to represent cash flow from operations as defined under accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America and should not be considered as an alternative to net income as an indicator of the Company’s operating performance or cash flows. EBITDA is presented because management believes it is a useful financial performance measure for comparing companies in the telecommunications industry in terms of operating performance and ability to satisfy debt service, capital expenditures and working capital requirements.
	•		“EBITDA margin” is EBITDA divided by total operating revenues.

     The selected historical consolidated financial data below should be read in conjunction with “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” and the audited consolidated financial statements of ACS Group and the related notes. See Index to Financial Statements and Schedule which appears on page F-1 hereof.

27

Table of Contents

ALASKA COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS GROUP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
For the Years Ended December 31, 2001, 2000 and 1999
(dollars in thousands, except per share amounts)

28

Table of Contents

SELECTED HISTORICAL COMBINED FINANCIAL DATA— CENTURYTEL’S ALASKA PROPERTIES

     The following table sets forth selected historical combined financial data of CenturyTel’s Alaska Properties. Consider the following points in connection with the table:

	•		The Company derived the selected historical combined financial data for each of the two years in the period ended December 31, 1998 and as of December 31, 1997 and 1998 from the audited combined financial statements and the related notes of CenturyTel’s Alaska Properties.
	•		CenturyTel acquired its Alaska properties on December 1, 1997 as part of its acquisition of Pacific Telecom. This acquisition was accounted for as a purchase, resulting in a pushdown of $248 million of goodwill to CenturyTel’s Alaska Properties.
	•		The selected historical combined financial data for the 11-month period ended November 30, 1997 has been presented on Pacific Telecom’s basis of accounting, while the selected historical combined financial data as of December 31, 1998 and 1997, the one-month period ended December 31, 1997 and the year ended December 31, 1998 have been presented on CenturyTel’s basis of accounting.
	•		The selected historical combined financial data of CenturyTel’s Alaska Properties include the results of the City of Fairbanks Telephone Operation from October 6, 1997, the date of its acquisition. This acquisition was accounted for as a purchase.
	•		On December 31, 1997, the cellular operations in Fairbanks were sold to ATU. The Fairbanks cellular property had 5,497 subscribers at the time of the sale.

29

Table of Contents

30

Table of Contents

SELECTED HISTORICAL FINANCIAL DATA— ATU

     The following table sets forth selected historical financial data of ATU. Consider the following points in connection with the table:

	•		ACS Group derived the selected historical financial data for each of the two years in the period ended December 31, 1998 and as of December 31, 1997 and 1998 from the audited financial statements and the related notes of ATU.
	•		“Other income (expense)” includes the equity in earnings (losses) from minority investments.
	•		During the periods presented, ATU was a public utility of the Municipality of Anchorage and was exempt from federal and state taxes on income.
	•		Net cash data includes information from ATU financial statements prepared in accordance with governmental accounting standards. Under Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statement No. 20, Accounting And Financial Reporting For Proprietary Funds And Other Governmental Entities That Use Proprietary Fund Accounting, ATU applied all applicable GASB pronouncements and all Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) Statements and Interpretations, Accounting Principles, Board Opinions and Accounting Research Bulletins, unless they conflict with or contradict GASB pronouncements. ATU followed the provisions of GASB Statement No. 27 to account for pension and post-retirement costs, which differs from FASB Statement No. 87 and FASB Statement No. 106 regarding the methodology for calculation of such costs and how they are recorded and disclosed. It is not practicable to quantify the differences between the statements without an additional complete actuarial valuation because the actuarial calculations for FASB Statement No. 87 purposes require different assumptions and represent different measurement basis. Other differences between GASB and FASB have been evaluated and have been determined not to be material for the periods presented.

31

Table of Contents