WASHINGTON-Five trade associations representing rural wireline carriers last week objected to a suggestion that universal-service support be restricted to primary lines.
“Before rural incumbent local exchange carriers and other eligible telecommunications carriers will invest in high-cost infrastructure, they must have a reasonable expectation that they will recover their costs,” said the Independent Telephone and Telecommunications Alliance, the National Telecommunications Cooperative Association, the Organization for the Promotion and Advancement of Small Telecommunications Companies, the United States Telecom Association and the Western Alliance.
Rural ILECs have been fighting wireless carriers for universal-service support as both the amount of subsidies and number of carriers receiving support have increased.
“Most wireless carriers have only constructed facilities in town and along the major highways of a rural study area and any universal-service support they receive may be used to `edge-out’ into the less densely populated areas,” said the groups.
There is a fear that the high-cost universal-service fund will go bankrupt because this increase in both subsidies and recipients comes at a time when long-distance revenues, which finance the USF, are decreasing.
For its part, the wireless industry often complains that it pays in much more than it takes out of the universal-service fund.
The Federal Communications Commission has asked the Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service to make recommendations on how the USF can be saved.
The joint board is considering limiting support to only “primary lines” so that one carrier could only receive support for one household instead of the current system where carriers receive support based on how many lines are serviced. This system has allowed wireless carriers to receive support for serving rural customers even if the customer has not cut the cord.
Another concern is the administrative burden in designating primary and secondary lines.
“Having carriers pry into the private living arrangements of their customers raises significant privacy concerns. For rural ILECs, not only would this be costly and administratively onerous, it would also destroy the goodwill they have established with their customers,” said the five organizations.
