Three Texas lawmakers told the Public Utilities Commission that i...
Three Texas lawmakers told the Public Utilities Commission that implementing a PUC staff recommendation for a 60 percent cut in state high-cost subsidies to big incumbents may harm their rural constituents by impairing their access to affordable phone service.…
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.
In letters to the PUC, State Reps. Joe Pickett, D-El Paso, Chente Quintanilla, D-El Paso County, and Pete Gallego, D-Alpine, said many constituents have phone service only because of the state’s universal service high-cost fund, and any plans to shrink the fund must account for the effects on rural and low-income populations in high-cost areas. They called for public hearings statewide as part of the PUC proceeding. PUC Chairman Barry Smitherman said the PUC review covers only the subsidies going to the largest incumbent telecom companies and won’t affect small and rural incumbents’ universal service funding. He invited the lawmakers to air their concerns at the PUC’s universal service reform hearings, starting April 14 in Austin. The PUC staff called March 3 for a 60 percent cut in universal service high cost subsidies to large incumbent firms like AT&T and Verizon, estimated to cut the state high- cost fund to $165 million from $395 million. The staff plan would reduce subsidies by raising the cost benchmark and reducing the number of subsidy-eligible lines. The recommendation would end subsidies for second lines and for all lines in exchanges classified as fully competitive. The staff filed its recommendation as part of a PUC review of its universal service programs (Case 34723). Many competitive carriers back the staff’s position. Large incumbents oppose it, saying the fund is inadequate and demanding it nearly double, to $750 million.