USTelecom, Sprint Support AT&T’s Call for Rural Health Care Clarity
USTelecom and Sprint Nextel separately asked the FCC Wireline Bureau to clarify that carriers shouldn’t have to reimburse the Universal Service Administrative Co. when Rural Health Care (RHC) applicants don’t comply with USAC audit procedures. AT&T asked the commission to reverse a decision by USAC that the service provider must foot the bill when one of its customers violates a USAC rule. The amount of money in question in the case appealed by AT&T is small: $1,860. The industry commenters said the issue presented is much larger.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
"This issue must be acted on promptly,” USTelecom said (http://xrl.us/bmahk4). “Over two years ago, Verizon filed a request for review that, while based on different facts than AT&T’s request, raised the exact same issues. That request has not yet been acted upon by the Bureau. While only AT&T and Verizon have appealed specific situations to the Bureau, the relevant USAC interpretation applies to every RHC service provider, including both current providers and any future providers. The potential for additional appeals is increased with every additional beneficiary and service provider.”
USTelecom conceded the dollar amount is small, but said the case raises real concerns. “Any potential service provider that bids to provide broadband service to a RHC provider places itself in financial jeopardy when, under the current USAC interpretation, the service provider is always the party at risk of having to refund monies to USAC should the beneficiary be found not to be in compliance with a Commission or USAC rule or procedure,” the association said.
Sprint said there’s no question in the case on which AT&T seeks clarity that AT&T’s not at fault (http://xrl.us/bmahpw). AT&T’s former customer declined to produce the paperwork sought by USAC, Sprint noted. “We agree that it is inappropriate for USAC to pursue recovery from AT&T given that AT&T clearly did not violate the rule and was not even the subject of the beneficiary review,” the carrier said. “USAC’s decision here is contrary to existing FCC policy that improperly disbursed funds should be recovered from the party that committed the statutory or rule violation.” The bureau should make clear that its determination applies to all “federal universal service programs for which there is a service provider and a beneficiary,” Sprint said.
The bureau sought comment in a July 18 notice. Comments were due Wednesday, replies Sept. 1. The program, one part of the Universal Service Fund, is authorized to pay out as much as $400 million per year, but historically it has been a much smaller program.