WASHINGTON-Support continued to mount last week for flexible rules that would give wireless
carriers options for contributing to the federal Universal Service Fund and a fair chance at replacing monopoly landline
telephone as subsidized providers of basic telephone service to low-income and rural subscribers.
Universal-service
policy is a top priority of the wireless industry, which believes the Federal Communications Commission ruling this
July on a USF funding model will help determine whether mobile phone operators can evolve as competitors to
wireline telcos as envisioned by the 1996 telecom act.
While the industry has tried to use the universal-service
debate as a springboard to publicize its anti-tax crusade, the pulling of the plug on Western Wireless Corp.’s residential
service in Regent, N.D., by North Dakota regulators two-and-a-half weeks ago is likely to become the lightening rod
that gets policy makers focused on the wireless component of universal service.
“While Western Wireless has
sought relief from the ILEC’s [incumbent local exchange carriers] unlawful and outrageous action from both the North
Dakota Public Service Commission and the FCC, this episode is characteristic of the difficulties new entrants in rural
areas may face,” Western Wireless stated in reply comments to the FCC last week.
Meantime, the FCC must
decide whether to stick with a plan that has universal-service contributions based on interstate revenues of 15 percent
for mobile phone carriers, 12 percent for paging operators and 1 percent for analog specialized mobile radio service
providers.
The wireless industry stressed the cost model for its USF payments should be based on realities of the
wireless marketplace rather than on Baby Bell wireline factors. Still, differences remain within the wireless industry
over how that policy should be articulated.
The Personal Communications Industry Association said it supports
giving carriers flexibility either to choose USF payments based on percentages set by the FCC or letting carriers use
their own data to determine contribution levels.
“Availability of this option [non-mandatory safe harbor USF
payment percentages] would be particularly useful for smaller and mid-sized carriers that may have more limited
resources with which to conduct traffic studies or otherwise measure the actual composition of their traffic,” said
PCIA.
The Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association also supports giving wireless carriers the option of
using their own data collecting figures to calculate the level of federal universal-service payments, and said the FCC
“should ensure that states adhere to the principles of competitive and, derivatively, technological neutrality in
implementing universal service mechanisms.”
CTIA is fighting in U.S. appeals court here to keep wireless
carriers from being forced to pay into state universal-service funds, arguing doing so would violate 1993 federal pre-
emption of state regulation of commercial entry and rates.
“The principle of competitive neutrality dictates the
commission enable wireless ETCs (eligible telecommunications carriers) to enter the universal service high cost
support funding system at frequent intervals and to receive support payments based on recent or current customer
counts,” said AT&T Corp.
The American Mobile Telecommunications Association urged the FCC to make a
distinction in wireless universal-service rules between traditional single, high-power antenna SMR systems, which
provide two-way radio service, and more sophisticated enhanced SMRs, like Nextel Communications Inc. and
Southern Communications Inc., which provide a mix of data and voice services over cellular-like networks.
