WASHINGTON-The task force examining universal-service issues in rural areas is creating a subgroup that will focus on competition and portability, said William R. Gillis, chair of the Universal Service Rural Task Force and a member of the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission.
This subgroup will focus on issues to all competitive local exchange carriers-not just wireless players. “There may be some specific issues for wireless, but generally for all [CLECs],” Gillis said.
Portability is an issue when discussing the possibility of using a cost proxy model to determine subsidy levels for universal-service support, said Gene DeJordy, executive director of regulatory affairs for Western Wireless Corp.
“We all agreed portability is an issue. But do you address that with a cost model?” asked DeJordy, when discussing the possibility of a subgroup.
The rural task force met last week to discuss issues and prepare a final draft of a policy paper that explains the differences between the portions of the United States served by rural telephone companies vs. those areas served by the regional Bell operating companies and GTE Corp.
The policy paper is the next step in a process as the task force prepares recommendations for the Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service. These recommendations are due Sept. 30.
After the joint board acts, the Federal Communications Commission will establish universal-service support policies for rural America.
“We have assessed this group, with this task for coming up with the differences for rural America,” said FCC Commissioner Susan Ness. Ness serves on the joint board.
Whether carriers should receive support for advanced services and indeed whether the definition of universal service should include advanced services is tying up the task force. FCC Commissioner Harold Furchtgott-Roth, another member of the joint board who visited the meeting, urged the task force to focus on the current definition of universal service.
“We have yet to solve the problem of even basic dial tone for rural America … My fear is that it would be nice to think about a new definition of universal service … but it is creating a process with no end … It would be administratively more manageable to come to the end of the current definition of universal service,” Furchtgott-Roth said.
