Federal Communications Commission.
In this document, the Commission asks the Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service to review certain of the Commission's rules relating to the high-cost universal service support mechanisms to ensure that the dual goals of preserving universal service and fostering competition continue to be fulfilled.
Effective December 26, 2002.Start Further Info
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kathy Tofigh, Attorney, Wireline Competition Bureau, Telecommunications Access Policy Division, (202) 418-7400.End Further Info End Preamble Start Supplemental Information
This is a summary of the Commission's Order in CC Docket No. 96-45 released on November 8, 2002. The full text of this document is available for public inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Room CY-A257, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554.
1. In this Order, we ask the Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service (Joint Board) to review certain of the Commission's rules relating to the high-cost universal service support mechanisms to ensure that the dual goals of preserving universal service and fostering competition continue to be fulfilled. In particular, we request the Joint Board to review the Commission's rules relating to high-cost universal service support in study areas in which a competitive eligible telecommunications carrier (ETC) is providing service, as well as the Commission's rules regarding support for second lines. We request that the Joint Board provide recommendations to the Commission regarding if and how those rules should be modified. We anticipate that the Joint Board will seek public comment on whether these rules continue to fulfill their intended purposes, and whether modifications are warranted in light of developments in the telecommunications marketplace. We also ask the Joint Board to examine the process for designating ETCs.
2. In light of developments in the telecommunications marketplace since 1997, we believe that it is appropriate to request the Joint Board to review the Commission's rules relating to support in competitive study areas and support for second lines. We also ask the Joint Board to examine the process for designating ETCs. The Joint Board should address how its recommendations regarding the issues set forth below further the universal service goals outlined in section 254 of the Act, including the principle of competitive neutrality. In addition, the Joint Board should consider how its analysis relates to the five-year time frame for high-cost support adopted in the Rural Task Force Order.
3. We ask the Joint Board to review the methodology for calculating support for ETCs in competitive study areas. In the First Report and Order, 62 FR 32862, June 17, 1997, the Commission determined that it was appropriate to calculate per-line portable universal service support for all ETCs based on the support that the incumbent LEC would receive for the same line. The Commission reasoned that calculating support based on the incumbent LEC's costs would aid the emergence of competition and would be the least burdensome way to administer the support mechanisms. In addition, the Commission explained that although a competitive ETC may have different costs than the incumbent LEC, a competitive ETC must also comply with section 254(e) of the Act, and that section 214(e) requirements would prevent competitive ETCs from profiting by limiting service to low cost areas. Some groups have argued that this methodology provides a windfall and creates an unfair advantage for competitive ETCs with lower costs, whereas others argue that the current rules are necessary for competitive neutrality and are the least administratively burdensome way to administer support. We ask the Joint Board to review the methodology for calculating support for ETCs in competitive study areas, taking into consideration the universal service principles outlined in section 254 of the Act and the principle of competitive neutrality. We also ask the Joint Board to examine the rules governing calculation of high-cost support for competitive ETCs utilizing UNEs.
4. Support for competitive ETCs currently is not capped under the Commission's rules. On the other hand, the Commission's rules limit the overall amount of rural high-cost loop support available to incumbent LECs. When the Commission adopted these rules in 2001, it concluded that the modified embedded cost mechanism would provide rural carriers with specific, predictable and sufficient support over the next five years. The Joint Board should address the potential benefits and costs of modifying these rules for stability, predictability, and sufficiency of the fund, as well as their potential effects on competition and competitive neutrality. In addition, the Joint Board should address the specific concerns raised in the Rural Task Force Order regarding excessive growth in the fund if incumbent rural carriers lose a significant number of lines to competitive ETCs. The Joint Board should also consider the methodology for determining the location of a line served by a mobile wireless service provider, and whether modifications are warranted.
5. The Joint Board should also consider the extent to which the Commission's current rules relating to support for second lines may impact the size of the universal service fund, and provide recommendations on whether the Commission should adopt modifications in this area. Under our current rules, all residential and business connections provided by ETCs are eligible for high-cost support. In adopting these rules in 1997, the Commission recognized that “overly expansive universal service mechanisms potentially could harm all consumers by increasing the cost of telecommunications services for all.” At that time, the Commission indicated it would continue to evaluate the issue. We now ask the Joint Board to consider whether the goals of section 254 would be served if support were limited to a single connection to the end-user—whether provided by the incumbent or a competitive ETC. We also ask the Joint Board to consider whether such a rule would be competitively neutral and how it would impact competition.
6. Finally, the Joint Board should address the system for resolving requests for ETC designations under section 214(e)(2) of the Act. Some parties have argued that shortcomings in the current system hamper the emergence of competition in rural areas, whereas others have expressed concerns that universal service goals will be undermined if state commissions do not impose similar universal service obligations on incumbent LECs and competitive ETCs. Taking into consideration these concerns, we ask the Joint Board to consider whether it is advisable to establish federal processing guidelines for ETC applications, and if so, what should be included in such guidelines. Furthermore, in the Rural Task Force Order, the Commission determined that the level of disaggregation of support should be Start Printed Page 70704considered in determining whether to certify new ETCs for a service area other than a rural carrier's entire study area. We ask the Joint Board to consider whether the Commission should provide additional guidance regarding the manner in which the level of disaggregation of support should be considered, and if so, what guidance the Commission should provide.
7. Pursuant to sections 1, 4(i) and (j), 214(e), 254, and 410 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, this Order is adopted.
8. Pursuant to sections 1, 4(i) and (j), 214(e), 254, and 410 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, the Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service is requested to review the Commission's rules relating to high-cost universal service support in study areas in which a competitive eligible telecommunications carrier is providing service and support for second lines and provide recommendations to the Commission.Start List of Subjects
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 54End List of Subjects Start Signature
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
[FR Doc. 02-29966 Filed 11-25-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P