The South Carolina Supreme Court upheld Public Service Commission...

PSC decision to shift state universal service support from implicit to explicit subsidies, and several supplemental orders. The suit by the state Office of Consumer Advocate and trade groups representing the state’s cable companies and competitive local providers alleged the PSC discriminated against competitive providers and acted unreasonably in setting fund size and contribution amounts. The state’s highest court (Case 26354) agreed with a trial court that the PSC universal service orders were supported by substantial evidence. The competitive providers contended the revised state fund would give incumbents an unfair advantage by letting them cut prices for competitive services, making up the difference from state subsidies. But the state court said competitive carriers can do so, since they can draw subsidies from the fund. The court said explicit universal service subsidies give all companies a chance to compete more equally. The court said the record supported the PSC’s choice of cost model to produce reasonable estimates of the cost of universal service in the state, meeting a statutory requirement to match costs and revenues. With the court case decided, the PSC can resume a suspended docket on whether to widen the contribution base by including revenues from directory listings, special access, wireless and broadband services, and whether Lifeline customers should pay universal service surcharges.