Senate Appropriations Chmn. Stevens (R-Alaska) told the leadership of the Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service reform he would oppose restricting the universal service fund (USF) to a single line. In a Jan. 22 letter to FCC Comr. Abernathy and Alaska Regulatory Comr. Nanette Thompson, who are co-chmn. of the board, Stevens said restricting USF to the primary line is “contrary to the fundamental purposes for universal services.” Stevens said the restriction to a single line would favor urban consumers over rural consumers. Extending USF to multiple lines would let rural carriers build out network facilities, he said. “I also worry that limiting support to primary lines would also become burdensome on small businesses operating in rural areas because they would be forced to pay higher rates for their telecommunications services in high-cost areas than they would pay in urban areas,” Stevens said. He also said he worried a “split decision” by the Board would result in confusion in rural areas and deter investment. “It is my hope that the Joint Board will be able to find a unified solution that will encourage investment in the rural markets rather than cause confusion,” Stevens said.
Federal Universal Service Fund
The FCC's Universal Service Fund (USF) was created by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to fund programs designed to provide universal telecommunications access to all U.S. citizens. All telecommunications providers are required to contribute a percentage of their end-user revenues to the Fund, which the FCC allocates for four core programs: 1. Connect America Fund, which subsidizes telecom providers for the increased costs of offering services to customers in rural and remote areas 2. Lifeline, which directly subsidizes low-income households to help pay for the cost of phone and internet service 3. Rural Health Care, which subsidizes health care providers to offer broadband telehealth services that can connect rural patients and providers with specialists located farther away 4. E-Rate, which subsidizes rural and low-income schools and libraries for internet and telecommunications costs The Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) administers the USF on behalf of the FCC, but requires Congressional approval for its actions. Many states also operate their own universal service funds, which operate independently from the federal program.
Vonage CEO Jeffrey Citron warned Fri. that “premature regulations could kill the nascent VoIP industry.” Speaking at a policy lunch sponsored by the Progress & Freedom Foundation in Washington, Citron said regulations could slow broadband deployment, undermine the U.S. position as a technological leader and force service providers offshore. He urged legislators to “bring clarity to the VoIP regulatory framework to protect competition. New laws are needed to ensure Internet applications remain free from regulation.”
With the FCC preparing to conduct a comprehensive study of how the federal govt. should regulate VoIP, NCTA for the first time laid out what the cable industry saw as the regulatory regime it would like. In a white paper sent to FCC commissioners and Capitol Hill Mon., NCTA said federal and state policy-makers should be careful not to overregulate this new technology and service and, in fact, should impose minimal regulation. Such an approach to VoIP could have potential implications for the Universal Service Fund (USF) and the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) which are funded under traditional common carrier regulations.
The Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service appears to be “very much divided” in its effort to seek improvements in the Universal Service Fund (USF)and, as a result, probably will present the FCC with some “conflicting views,” Western Wireless CEO John Stanton said Tues. in an interview with Communications Daily. Even in areas where there’s a majority view in the Joint Board’s recommendations, there probably will be an “active minority” view, perhaps leading to divisions at the FCC as well, Stanton predicted.
Western Wireless and NTCA officials, on opposite sides of many issues on the Universal Service Fund’s future, said Fri. they shared opposition to recommendation of a primary line restriction by the Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service. Of the issues before the Joint Board, “the specter of primary line restriction is probably most troubling,” Mark Rubin, Western Wireless dir.-federal govt. affairs, told an FCBA lunch.
Several senators wrote to the Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service leadership to argue against a primary line restriction for the universal service fund (USF). In a Dec. 18 letter to FCC Comr. Abernathy, joint board federal chmn., and Alaska Regulatory Comr. Nanette Thompson, state chmn., the senators argued that limiting USF to the primary line would deny rural consumers equal access to telecom services. The letter was signed by Senate Communications Subcommittee Chmn. Burns (R-Mont.), Senate Minority Leader Daschle (D-S.D.) and Sens. Dorgan (D-N.D.), Johnson (D-S.D.), Baucus (D-Mont.), Snowe (R-Me.), and Lincoln (D-Ark.). It said a primary line restriction would force rural customers to pay “exorbitant rates” for 2nd phone lines or wireless service. It said the Joint Board was considering imposing the primary line restriction, but hadn’t made any formal recommendations at this point. “Rural consumers want and need affordable multiple connections -- often from multiple providers -- just as much as consumers in urban areas,” the letter said. “The fact is that there is nothing reasonable or comparable about denying rural people access to 2nd lines or cellphones.” A primary line restriction would limit rural carriers’ ability to service debt on facilities approved by regulators and built, the senators wrote. They said small business could be badly hurt, since many needed more than one line. “We understand your concerns about the size of the program, but disagree with the need to take this drastic step of limiting support to a primary line,” the letter said.
Cox, which for 6 years has advocated the benefits of circuit-switched telephony, introduced voice-over-Internet protocol (VoIP) in the Roanoke, Va., area, where it will go head-to-head with Verizon. But unlike many cable players that in recent days have announced VoIP as their first voice offerings, Cox sees its long-term strategy as more of a hybrid, with the circuit switches serving as a backbone for a national architecture and VoIP deployment in smaller markets where its relatively low startup costs make it the more attractive option.
FCC Comr. Adelstein reiterated Thurs. his concern about the pressures on the Universal Service Fund (USF) caused by the growth of competitors seeking support from it, and recommended a new process that could place limits on competitive use of USF support. Speaking at a telecom conference sponsored by FCBA and the Practising Law Institute, Adelstein said the Telecom Act intended multiple carriers to be eligible for support or it wouldn’t have created the eligible telecom carrier (ETC) process for additional carriers to gain funding. However, he said he wondered whether Congress had anticipated the size of the demand that was emerging. “It may come to a choice of financing competition or financing network development in rural areas,” he said.
FCC Chmn. Powell gave early indications of his thinking about a regulatory regime for Voice-over-Internet Protocol (VoIP) Mon., saying he saw consensus that the service might be deemed “interstate” in nature and that concerns about VoIP were focused on 4 or 5 discrete issues. His comments to reporters came after an FCC forum on VoIP that featured industry leaders, state public utility commissioners and others.
A USTA plan to get high-tech suppliers to support a deregulatory lobbying campaign may be an antitrust violation, 26 competitive telecom companies plus ALTS and CompTel said in a letter sent Fri. to key congressional committees. USTA invited top executives of high-tech companies to a closed dinner Oct. 20 in Washington to discuss a possible lobbying alliance and seek funding from the suppliers. One Bell official later characterized the plan as a natural move, given that high-tech suppliers had tended to support Bells’ deregulatory campaigns.