Utah Supreme Court case decided earlier this week on terms of eli...

Washington. State Supreme Court Tues. backed earlier decision by Utah PSC. PSC had designated Western Wireless as ETC in nonrural areas served by U S West, with eligibility to receive state universal service support contingent on Western Wireless’s charging no more than affordable base rates. Court ruling said PSC decided it wouldn’t be in public interest to designate Western Wireless as additional ETC in rural areas served by incumbent carriers, concluding that that designation would increase demands on state universal service fund without offsetting benefits. Of interest is that court based its findings on consideration of Western Wireless as commercial mobile radio service, rather than fixed wireless service, as has been case in ETC proceedings in other states, Ramsay said. “This has the potential of being a test case because there the carrier classified as mobile,” Ramsay said in panel discussion. At issue was PSC requirement that in non- ruralareas where Western Wireless was given ETC status, it should price its universal service offering at “affordable base rates” to receive state universal service funds. Ruling said Western Wireless had sought reversal of that price cap requirement because Utah law was preempted by federal statute that directed that no state or local govt. regulate CMRS rates. Ruling said state statute on universal service fund requirements “does not unilaterally restrict or control the rates a commercial mobile service can charge for its services -- the very essence of rate regulation.” Noting that Utah Supreme Court found that wasn’t rate regulation, Ramsay said question “would have come up if they were a fixed wireless carrier.” Several panelists said such questions raised larger issue of whether it was in public interest to have multiple funded carriers that had ETC status in rural areas because of pressure that exerted on overall universal service funding. “That’s a very fundamental point,” said Michael Fox, vp-CCG Consulting. If state PUCs took position that multiple competitors with ETC status were good in rural areas, “to me, that opens up potentially a dangerous avenue,” he said. Asked about Commission proposal that sought comment on intercarrier compensation regime that included bill-and- keep system, under which each carrier would recover access costs from own users, panelists representing rural telcos agreed that would put more pressure on existing funds such as universal service. “There is no one answer to intercarrier compensation -- their can’t be,” said Rex Mitchell, vp-BB&T Capital Markets. “Quite frankly, the cost of delivering the call isn’t the same for one carrier versus another. Until we recognize that, we're not going to get the right answer.”