Telecom companies and other parties offered a wish list of change...
Telecom companies and other parties offered a wish list of changes to the rural high-cost universal service program, in comments to the Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service that were due late Fri. SBC urged modification of the definition…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
of “rural” carriers to include all carriers serving rural and high cost areas. It also recommended limiting the universal service support available to competitive ETCs to the lesser of their own costs or the costs of the incumbent carrier. Western Wireless, one of those rural competitors, recommended adopting a new unified rural high-cost support mechanism that would be based on forward-looking, rather than embedded, costs. Western Wireless said the unified system would fund competitive and incumbent carriers alike. “Maintaining different funding systems for different sizes or types of carriers violates competitive and technological neutrality, undermines competition and harms consumers,” Western Wireless said. NTCA, USTA, OPASTCO and AllTel, on the other hand, urged retaining the system of providing high-cost support to rural carriers based on embedded costs. NTCA included a white paper to back up its view that “a shift to a forward-looking standard is unlikely to achieve the efficiency that those who support that model portray it can.” Said OPASTCO: “Alteration of the mechanism for rural ILECs is neither necessary nor desirable. Where reform is needed is in the portability rules for competitive ETCs.” These rules are causing limited universal service resources to be wasted” and are causing strain on the high-cost universal service program. USTA said “the current system of providing high-cost support to rural carriers is not necessarily broken” and the FCC instead should concentrate on related issues of: “Problems with ETC designations, contributions to the Universal Service Fund and intercarrier compensation, all of which should be addressed holistically, rather than separately as is currently the case.” AT&T said the FCC shouldn’t move on the issue now but focus first on intercarrier compensation. The National Assn. of State Utility Consumer Advocates recommended a forward-looking economic cost test for rural carriers with 50,000 lines or more. Sprint said the FCC should continue using actual costs until an accurate and appropriate forward-looking mechanism is created.