State Participation Still Makes Sense in Future USF Policy, Stakeholders Tell Congress
Congress received divided views on how important state authorities should be in any new communications regimen, in comments due Friday to the House Commerce Committee on a white paper about overhauling Communications Act USF policy (CD Sept 22 p7). Groups representing smaller telecom companies and state regulators emphasized the importance of an ongoing state role, and several commenters pointed to the FCC Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service and its potential importance for federal-state cooperation. Bigger industry groups such as CTIA advocated more limited state involvement.
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.
NARUC said it “certainly does not” make sense for Congress to pre-empt the state role in USF, despite “unsupported rhetoric” urging a reduced state role. “Practically, the majority of your constituents’ voice and text communications are still within a sixty to one hundred mile radius of the place they designate as home,” NARUC told House Republicans (http://bit.ly/1mD62FB). “Think about it. Regardless of the equipment used to initiate the communication, the bulk of their calls and texts are to family, friends, local business and government (including, of course, 911 calls) and (1) are both ‘local’ and (2) never touch the public internet.” State officials lead restoration attempts during disasters and should not kill “local consumer avenues for relief from improper disconnections, poor service quality, etc.,” it said. “As the plethora of State programs cited elsewhere indicate, universal service has obvious implications for a State’s economy.”
"Giving state and local regulators a clearly defined complementary role in matters such as consumer protection and the need for universal service in individual ‘markets’ would seem well-advised and consistent with current successful public policies,” NTCA said (http://bit.ly/1ue86WR). “The states play, and should continue to play, a critical role with respect to universal service policy.” State regulators have a lot of information even as technology changes to IP-based services and interstate preferences, NCTA said.
Sprint backed an ongoing state role “in administering the federal USF and ensuring that policy objectives are met,” with an eye toward what areas are unserved and underserved, and Lifeline eligibility and outreach and eligible telecom carrier designation.
Comptel said “states should be encouraged to promote universal service for advanced networks and services as well as voice services,” with affirmative state action potentially lessening federal burdens. “Many states have their own universal service programs and coordination between the federal and state programs to achieve shared objectives occurs through the Joint Board process,” Comptel said.
Congress should “examine ways to create incentives for state governments to become more proactive in providing universal service funding for broadband infrastructure deployments and upgrades in their high-cost areas,” said joint comments from WTA and the Washington Independent Telecommunications Association. “One possible approach would be to review the status and effectiveness of current federal-state regulatory jurisdiction over broadband services and perhaps confer greater regulatory jurisdiction over broadband services upon states with state universal service funds that support broadband infrastructure and services.”
CTIA urged Congress to leave state USF programs “preempted as unnecessary.” CTIA called any distinguishing of intrastate and interstate service “increasingly irrelevant,” and backed a uniform national policy. CTIA criticized the “attenuated connection between the source and use” of USF money. “While the programs that USF supports are valuable, they need not be funded through assessments on providers and customers of unrelated services,” it said (http://bit.ly/1v08VQM). “Instead, Congress should consider devoting general revenue funds appropriated through the federal government’s regular budgetary process to these programs.”
FCC programs must be “more efficient, effective, and sustainable,” Sprint told Congress. “Congress and the FCC must ensure the USF does not undermine private broadband investment by competitive service providers.” Sprint wants support to incumbent providers in areas where there is an alternative to be phased out. The Free State Foundation suggested phasing out E-rate and the high-cost fund. “Substantial savings may be obtained by phasing out those programs that do not directly serve the goal of bringing access to those who cannot afford it,” Free State said (http://bit.ly/XXOYOO). (jhendel@warren-news.com)