BEFORE THE
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554                    APR 1 2

In the Matter Of

CC Docket No. 80-286
CC Docket No. 96-45



COMMENTS OF ITCS, INC.  IN RESPONSE TO THE COMMISSION'S
NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING AND NOTICE OF INQUIRY

Amendment of Part 36 of The
Commission's Rules And
Establishment of a Joint Board


April 12.1996

David A. Irwin
Irwin, Campbell & Tannenwald, P.C.
1730 Rhode Island Ave., N.W.
Washington. D.C. 20036
(202) 728-0400

BEFORE THE
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554


In the Matter Of

Amendment of Part 36 of The
Commission's Rules And
Establishment of a Joint Board

CC Docket No. 80-286
CC Docket No. 96-45



COMMENTS OF ITCS, INC.  IN RESPONSE TO THE COMMISSION'S
NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING AND NOTICE OF INQUIRY


GENERAL ISSUES RELATING TO HIGH-COST ASSISTANCE

     ITCS.  Inc.. an economic cost consultant to independent telephone companies serving
America's great rural hinterland. by Counsel, on behalf of Chariton Valley Telephone
Company, Columbine Telephone Company.  Cunningham Telephone Company, ETEX
Telephone Cooperative, Filer Mutual Telephone Co. - Idaho, Filer Mutual Telephone Co. -
Nevada, Mokan Dial, Inc. - Kansas, Mokan Dial, Inc. - Missouri, South Central
Telecommunications of Kiowa, South Central Telephone Association - Kansas, South
Central Telephone Association -Oklahoma, Tri-County Telephone Association, Inc., TCT
West.  Inc. and Wiggins Telephone Association, respectfully comment as follows':

     Each of the above-listed telephone companies serve very rural, remote and sparselv
populated areas.  In each case, these telephone companies initiated service after 1950 and the
initiation of service to the public was made possible bv virtue of governmental policies
promoting Universal Service.

          Introduction: Universal Service Funding has Worked Historically: Because the
Commission has historically sought to promote and protect Universal Service in rural areas
through the Universal Service Fund ("USF") and the dial equipment minute ("DEM")
weighing support mechanisms, rural Americans have benefitted from new and improved
service.  Indeed, the manner in which the United States has achieved and maintained
Universal Service is envied in both developed and developing nations.  But. promoting and
protecting Universal Service has become considerably more difficult in today's era of
competition and advancing telecommunications technologies and applications.
          In the context of modernizing Universal Service policies, the Telecommunications
Act of 1996 requires the FCC to undertake a very fine balancing act.  On the one hand the
Act was passed to promote competition in all markets including local exchange telephone
services.  On the other hand, Congress sought to craft it legislation to require the FCC to
maintain and indeed promote Universal Service.  It is notable that the Act was drafted in this
manner because it recognizes that when competition was introduced into the rail. bus and
airline industries. rural areas lost out.  Instead of rural areas gaining through the process of
competition these important infrastructure industries dried up or left the public with onlv
token service.  Consequently, the FCC does not have the option of willv nilly forgetting
about the historic effects of competition on rural, insular and high cost areas under the
Telecommunications Act of 1996.  This is so. because Congress charged the FCC with the
difficult responsibility of reconciling diametrically opposed economic principles.  Put
another way, Congress makes clear that Universal Service is socially beneficial, but the fact
of life is that it mav not be economically beneficial to the service provider in the absence of
USF support.
          It is in this context that Commentors submit, that the likelihood of competitors
coming into rural exchange areas, makes it ever more important that there be adequate
industry, support mechanisms to ensure that vital telephone services in rural America remain
affordable to the public and at rate levels that are reasonably comparable to rates charged for
similar services in urban areas.  It is the public. not the incumbent LECs nor the would-be
competitors that the FCC is charged to protect through Universal Service support.
          The Telecommunications Act of 1996 provided for some novel and interesting
concepts for Universal Service.  The concepts of "quality service" is interesting, but
undefined.  "Quality service" can only be realized when a company is dedicated to quality.  
In rural. insular. and hiah cost areas. such quality comes onlv at a premium to the service
supplier.  But. ostensibly. this is the price competitors were willing to pay for the opportunity
to bring competition to the local exchange under the Telecommunications Act.  Therefore.
there should be no qualms about the FCC implementing the Act in totality.  Thus, it is
incumbent upon the FCC to insure that "quality service" continue in areas that currently have
it, further to ensure that areas that do not have such service be provided with it in the future.
          It is a known fact that cellular service does not provide the same clarity of
conversation as we have come to enjoy from landline telephony.  Does cellular service
therefore constitute service of inferior quality? It is also a fact that the United Telephone
Company and US West, two large company proponents of the Census Block Group Plan,
have a reputation for poor service in rural. insular and high cost areas.  And, isn't it ironic
that these two known service quality abusers (even under rate of return regulation) would
now propose a system (Census Block Group Plan) that would compensate them for providing
service in name only, -- allow them to receive revenues under the Census Block Group Plan
without requiring them to invest monev into areas that want for quality service.  There is
public record that these companies have been perverting the system under rate of return
regulation bv not investing in the rural areas; and now thev propose to debauch a new svstem
-- Census Block Groups -- to milk their service areas to enhance their bottom lines until their
rural exchange areas become devoid of telephone service.  Given the track record of these two
companies and their modem day "competitieve mindset," it is fair to conclude that they have
little or no intent to rebuild the decrepit telephone plant in their rural areas, but rather Just to
collect USF for as long as possible.  In contrast, the independent telephone companies that
have spent a lifetime of hard work and reinvested their earnings in providing "quality
service" in the rural. insular and high cost areas, would be required to live with some
arbitrary and irrelevant estimate of the cost of providing service, which in the small high-cost
areas they serve mav leave the public disadvantaged.  Consequently, Commentors submit
that it is imperative that anv USF funding be cost based, so that service providers become
obligated to first install the plant as a condition precedent to receiving anv USF.  
Commentors further submit that surrogate funding such as the Census Block Group Plan
inherently does not require a commitment to service (rather it would promote abuses); in fact
it would destroy Universal Service contrary to the intent of the Telecommunications Act of
1996.
          The concepts of "affordability." "rates that are reasonably comparable to rates
charged for similar services in urban areas" and "a provider of ... services shall provide such
services to its subscribers in each State at rates no higher than rates charged to its subscribers
in an,,, other State" require a different wav of approaching and calculating Universal Service
Funding.  The current svstem falls short in providing the proper base for developing the
underlying rates and the Census Block Group Plan does not accurately estimate the true
amount of funding required to maintain Universal Service.  These concepts require that the
costs of the underlying purchased services. access charges and wholesale rates for resold
services also be priced to be affordable and at "rates that are reasonably comparable to rates
charged for similar services in urban areas".  This concept is critical.  When the access
charges and wholesale rates for resold services are at a level that does not permit
"affordability" or "rates that are reasonably comparable to rates charged for similar services
in urban areas" and these are requirements that must be adhered to. the competitive providers
will not provide service in these areas.  It is just economics.  At that point one of two things
will happen. the service will be provided above "affordable" or "reasonably comparable
rates" which is contrarv to the letter as well as the intent of the Act, or in the alternative the
service will not be provided at all which is also contrarv to the letter and spirit of the Act.  
The concepts of "affordability," "rates that are reasonably comparable to rates charged for
similar services in urban areas" and "a provider of .. services shall provide such services to
its subscribers in each State at rates no higher than rates charges to its subscribers in anv
other State" can only be implemented when the underlying service provider receives the
Universal Service Funding from a source that takes into consideration all of the factors that
cause high costs.  This information only, resides at the interstate level and more specifically
at NECA.  Should the Universal Service Fund be other than totally interstate, then we would
have to deal with the issue of average state costing.  States such as Wvoming.  North Dakota
and South Dakota with low densities. would have much larger statewide average costs than
would states such as New Jersey and Rhode Island.  How could there be "rates that are
reasonably comparable to rates charged for similar services in urban areas" utilizing onlv
state universal service fund data instead of an interstate universal service fund or in the
alternative utilizing a combination of a state and interstate universal service fund.  Utilizing
both a state and interstate universal service funds would make "rates that are reasonably
comparable to rates charged for similar services in urban areas" and from State to State
nearly impossible to implement.
          To implement the Act changes are required in the current system.  The current svstem
of DEM Weighting and Gross Allocator leaves the companies in rural insular and high cost
areas with access rates at two to five times the access rates of their counterparts in urban
areas in both the interstate and intrastate jurisdictions.  The Census Block Group Plan does
not provide for underlying access rates that "... are reasonably comparable to rates charged
for similar services in urban areas" because the Plan cannot accurately predict the cost of
providing service in every Census Block Group.  For small companies in rural. insular and
high cost areas, where the Census Block Group Plan underestimates the amount of USF, it
would have a devastating effect on the incumbent provider.  And, because there would not
be sufficient funding, no other provider would be willing to provide service and Universal
Service would be destroyed, contrary to the provisions of the 1996 Act.
The current system is lacking and unable to resolve these issues for the follow-
ing  reasons:

1. USF is calculated independently of the Cost Study.  Therefore.  the  total  of  USF  and  the
Cost Study revenues seldom if ever equal one.  They  almost  alwavs  equal  less  than  one
or more than one. This type of scenario allows for "gaming the system.

2. The current USF funding mechanism is calculated to leave  rural.  insular  and  high  cost
areas with high costs and rates that are higher than the nationwide average. because  the
support does not start flowing until  costs  are  greater  than  115%  of  the  nationwide
average.

3. The current USF  funding  mechanism  also  has  a  two  vear  delay  in  providing  funding
for new investment.

4. The current Dial Equipment Minute  weighting  factor  is  a  form  of Universal  Service  that
leaves the rural. insular and high cost areas with very high access rates because it
allocates the most of the switch revenue requirement to the access area and not to a
separate fund.

5. The current transport allocation method does not take into consideration  the  high  cost  of
providing transport in rural, insular and high cost areas.      1 1

6. The current system does not consider the fact that rural subscribers  use  only  about  one
half to two thirds of the minutes per  access  line  per  month  that  are  utilized  on  a
nationwide average basis,  because  rural  subscribers  generally  have  verv  small  local
calling areas. So even if the cost per access line were  exactlv  the  same  the  cost  per
minute of use would be double the cost per minute of use in urban areas.  This  issue  must
be addressed under the new Act.
 
The Census Block Group methodology is lacking, and unable to resolve these issues for the
following reasons:
1.	 The  Census  Block  Group  methodology  promotes  "gaming  the  svstem".   A   companv   has
only to be the provider of service to get Universal  Service  Funding.  Such  funding  is
based on the amount of funding for each access line in the Census Block.  not  on  the  true
cost of providing the service nor on the dedication to quailty  of  service.  Currently.  it
takes an abnormal amount of time first to define the lack  of  "quality  service"  and  then
to institute action to require additional investments.  During  all  this  time  the  Census
Block Plan would provide additional  funding  for  the  incumbent  provider,  whereas  under
a cost based plan the  incumbent  would  only  get  paid  on  the  investments  made.  Those
Census Blocks that have sufficient cost built in will have a potential for  a  large  number
of service providers while those Census Blocks that have less  than  sufficient  cost  built
into their Census Blocks will not draw a competitor and  will  tax  the  existing  provider.
Carrying this a step  further.  within  a  Census  Block,  the  provider  will  serve  those
customers that are closest to the backbone cable (where  the  greatest  profits  are  found)
and be more reluctant to provide service to the area  furthest  from  the  backbone  cable  (the
lower profitability). At least under a cost based svstem there is an  incentive  to  provide
service to the subscribers on the outer fringes of the serving areas.

The Census Block Plan does not take into consideration the usage per  access  line  that  is
so essential to "rates that are reasonably comparable to rates charged for similar  services
in urban areas."

Set forth below, Commentors propose a "Per Minute of Use Universal Service Plan"
that, if adopted, would allow for implementation of everv aspect of Section 254 of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996.
Specifically, the Plan allows for:

(1)	Quality services being available at just, reasonable and affordable rates;

(2)	Access to advanced services;

(3)	Customers in all regions of the Nation including  low-income  consumers  and  those
in rural, insular and high  cost  areas  havina  access  to  telecommunications  and
information services;

(4)	All telecommunications services  should  make  an  equitable  and  nondiscriminatory
contribution to the preservation and advancement of universal service;

(5)	Specific, predictable and sufficient Federal and State mechanisms  to  preserve  and
advance universal service;

(6)	Access to  advanced  telecommunications  services  for  schools,  health  care,  and
libraries;

(7)	Rates that are reasonably comparable to rates charged for similar services in  urban
areas;

(8)	Competitively and technology neutral assistance; and

(9)	A method to promote toll and resale competition in rural  areas  while  maintaining
the monopoly efficiencies of low densitv rural, insular and high cost areas.

Plan Summary

THE PER MINUTE OF USE UNIVERSAL SERVICE PLAN

THE PLAN AND THE SOLUTION

          Establish a High Cost Fund for Low Usage/Density Common Line, Switching
and Transport Facilities.

I	This plan establishes a level playing field that  will  promote  competition  in
rural areas.

This plan is usacye sensitive in that the higher the usage per access line  the
lower the dependency  on  a  Universal  Service  Funding-  Mechanism.  That  is,
as usage goes up, the requirement for USF goes down.

3.	This plan eliminates all other types of  support  such  as  Long  Term  Support,
DEM Weighing, RIC Charges. etc., except for Lifeline and Link-Up.

4.	This plan helps  maintain  Nationwide  Average  Toll  and  Local  Rates  between
companies and  regions  because  it  provides  for  underlying  rates  that  are
reasonably comparable to rates charged for similar services  in  urban  areas.
Further. resultant lower access charges  will  promote  robust  IXC  competition
for rural markets.

          This Plan would applv to Rate of Return regulated companies and all companies
utilizing the current Jurisdictional Separations.  Part 36 and could be adapted to rural areas
of price cap LECS.  The Universal Service Fund would be calculated on a current basis.
along with the cost studv and would have to be trued up as part of the cost study.  Funding
for the Universal Service Fund would be similar to the funding for the Telephone Relay
Svstem.  From a Separations standpoint there are a few changes that would have to be made.  
These are:

1 .	Add an additional column  to  the  cost  separation  output  for  the  Universal
Service  revenue  requirement.  This  would  be  in  addition  to  the   current
Interstate, Intrastate and Local Jurisdictions.

2.	Switching gross investment within the  national  average  gross  investment  per
loop (or  some  percentage  thereof)  adjusted  for  usage  would  be  allocated
jurisdictionally  based  on  Switched  Minutes  of   Use   (SMOU)   except   for
switching  investment  allocated  to  Universal  Service.  SMOU  uses  the  same
basic data as  Subscriber  Line  Usage  (SLU)  except  that  it  uses  onlv  one
switching minute of use for each local minute  as  compared  to  SLU  that  uses
two subscriber line minutes for each local minute.             Switching gross
investment over the national average aross investment per loop (or some
percentage thereof) adjusted for usage would be directly assigned to the
Universal Service Jurisdiction.

Common Line gross investment within the national average gross investment
	per loop (or some percentage thereof) adjusted  for  usace  would  be  allocated
	on  the  various  jurisdictions  based  on   SLU.   except   for   Common   Line
	investment  allocated  to  Universal  Service.  Common  Line  -ross   investment
	over the  national  average  cross  investment  per  loop  (or  some  percentage
	thereof) adjusted for usage would  be  direct]-,,  assigned  to  the  Universal
	Service Jurisdiction.

4.	Transport  cross  investment  would  include,   Host/Remote.   Exchange   Trunk,
	and interexchange Transport Facilities. Transport gross  investment  within  the
	national average  gross  investment  per  loop  (or  some  percentage  thereof)
	adjusted for usage would be allocated to the various  jurisdictions  based  on
	actual usage bv investment type except for  transport  investment  allocated  to
	Universal Service. Since transport has  three  different  types  of  investment.
	the usage in the cost study (for allocation on usage) would be proportional  to
	the total (i.e. Host/Remote Cable and Wire Facilities (C&WF) is 43%  of  total
	transport facilities.  then  Host/Remote  C&WF  allocated  on  actual  usage  in
	the  cost  studv  would  be  43%  of  the  National  average  transport   gross
	investment per loop.  Transport  -ross  investment  over  the  national  average
	gross investment per loop  (or  some  percentage  thereof)  adjusted  for  usage
	would be directlv assigned to the Universal Service Jurisdiction.

5.	Wideband Facilities (T1  and areater for Special Access).               Wideband
	Facilities investment within the national  average  gross  investment  per  loop
	would be allocated to the various jurisdictions based  on  actual  usage  except
	for transport investment allocated to  Universal  Service.  Wideband  Facilities
	gross investment over the national average  gross  investment  per  loop  would
	be directly assigned to the Universal Service Jurisdiction.

6.	The Service Order Processing Charge would  be  allocated  to  all  Jurisdictions
	on the  basis  of  SLU  rather  than  being  directly  allocated  to  the  Local
	Jurisdiction. The Service Order Processing  Charge  benefits  all  jurisdictions
	for  new  services  and  terminations  of  current  service.  Therefore.  it  is
	inappropriate to allocate the full cost of Service Order  Processing  to  local.
	Further,  cost  per  minute  amounts  are  skewed  to  local  if  Service  Order
	Processing is allocated 100% to local.

          Asset contra accounts and all expenses would continue to be allocated to the various
jurisdictions including Universal Service on the same basis (gross investment) and in the
same manner as thev are todav.

               s shown below.  NECA would develop the nationwide average gross investment per
access line for Common Line.  Switching and Transport Facilities.  These calculations
would be performed by- NECA. who would have access to this information on an annual
basis.

		Total Nat'l	Total        LoopsAvg        Cost
		Investment	(Incl.    Spec     Acc)Per        Loop
Nat'l	Acct 2210	$           56,830,864,000	140,745,396$    40'.78
Nat'l	Acct 223O Cat 4.13	$           18,890,878,000	14-').426.250$131.71
Nat'l	Acct   1-410   Cat    I.-',	$ 109,076,807,000	14'.426,250$760.51
Nat'l	Acct      22')O       Transport	$           26,770,572,000	14').426.'-)50$186.65
Nat'l	Acct      '-)410      Transport	$          1').134.741,000	14').426.250$91.58
	Total		$  1,5 74.2'  )

(,Source:      199')      NECA       Data)


As    shown    beioA,,    each    companv     would     develop     average     costs     per     access     line     for
Common Line.  SwitchinL- and Transport Facilities.

Co      A	Acct '-2 1 0	1,167.13     72.53')$       460.77
Co      A	A cc t 2'-! '@ 0 Cat  4.  1	9').')972,567$   ')6.-')8
Co      A	Acct   241   0   Cat    1.3	3,543,764'-'. 5 6 7$        1@'80.51
Co      A	Acct      @-'-30      Transport	$117,0942,567$45.61
Co      A	Acct    @-41    0     TransportS1-@').4@-1--1,567$59.77
	Total$5.074.81')	$   1,983.04

Co      B	Acct -21 0$')29.799650$507.38
Co      B	Acct 2-.'  )  0  Cat  4.  1	$19,129662$28.90
Co      B	Acct   241   0   Cat    1.3	$681,8966 6'-)$1,030.05
Co      B	Acct       2230       Transport	$111,921662$169.06
Co      B	Acct   24   1    0    Transport	$          7.'-' ') 1662$   56.'-)4
	Total	1,179,976	$   1.791.6'    )


          As shown below. develop the national averace usage per access line for switching
and circuit equipment using Switched Minutes of Use (SMOU) for switching and Subscriber
Line Usage (SLU) minutes of use for Common Line Equipment and appropriate usaee
factors for other equipment.  These calculations would be performed by NECA. who would
have access to this information.


	SLU Minutes of Use	Total Loops   Avg Ann Usage
		Per Loop
Interstate	386.619.574.000
Intrastate	317,642.293.OOO
Local	1,949,477.731.000

Total	  2,653,739,598,000	140.745.396	             1 8.855

	SMOU Minutes of Use	Total Loops	              Avg  Ann Usage
			                Per Loop
Interstate	  386,619,574,000
Intrastate	  317,642,293,000
Local	  974,738,865,500
Total	    1,679,000,732,500	140,745,396	             11,929

	Transport Minutes of Use		Total Loops   Avg Ann Usage
			                Per Loop
Interstate	  386,619,574,000
Intrastate	    17,642,293,000
Local	  584,843,319,300

Total              l,289,105,186,3OO            140,745,396 9.159


          (NOTE: Local Transport Minutes - Extended Area Service - are assumed to be 60%
of SMOU or 30% of SLU minutes of use.)


As shown below. the average SLU and SMOU usage per company access line

1       is
developed on an individual company basis.  Next. develop the company's percentage of
averacge usage per subscriber to the nationwide average usage per subscriber.  The percent
developed will be used to adjust the company cost per loop for usage.

	SLU	Loops	Avg_     Ann      UsagePercent
Co     A	30.627.793	2553	12'-,.09'-16    4     %

Co     B	8.406,186	650	12,93369%

	smou	Loops	Avg      Ann      UsaLePercent
Co     A	4. 4 -') 6. 5'?- 8	'-'53@@	9,6478    1     %

Co     B	6.68').104	650	10,28286%

	Transport	Loops	Avg     Ann      UsaizePercent
Co     A	20.5)2.480	'-15 3 1)	8@1058    8     %

Co     B	-@.062,644	650	7,78985%

          Assumincg that no universal service funding allocations  will be provided for
companies with an average. usace adjusted cost per loop less than 115% of the national
avera2e cost per loop, the following is the usage adjustment.

Calculation of Universal Service Funding Allocations  Amounts for Co A:

National    Average    Switch    Investment    per    Loop    allocated    to    the    Cost     Study     [S     403.78
1.00    (High    Cost    Fund    Differential)    *    .81    (SMOU    Adj)    =    S    327.06    (Adj     National
Average      Investment      for      Six-itching      per       loop)].       Company       A       Average       Switch
Investment   per    Loop    [S    460.77    (Company    A    Avg)    -    S    327.061   S      l33.71      (Company
Gross     Switch     Investment     to     High     Cost     Fund)

National Average Subscriber Investment per Loop allocated to the Cost Study
[$892.22 (National Avg for Subscriber Carrier & Cable) * 1.00 (High Cost Fund
Differential) * .64 (SLU Adj) = S 571.02 (Adj National Average Investment for
Subscriber Cable and Carrier per Loop)].  Company A Gross Investment in
Subscriber Cable and Carrier per Loop [S1,416.89 (Company A Avg) - $571.02
(Adj Nat'l Avg) = $845.87 (Company Gross Investment in Subscriber Cable and
Carrier per Loop Allocation to Universal Service Fund), [($845.87 * .036 (Cat 4.13 )
to Total CL) = $ 3O.45 (Universal Service Fund Allocation Per MTS Loop to Cat
4.13]. [($845.87 * .964 (Cat 1 C&WF to Total CL) = S815.42 (Universal Service

Fund Allocation Per MTS Loop of Cat I C&WF)].


National Average Transport Investment per Loop allocated to the Cost Stud-,, [S
278.23  (Nat'l Avg Cost for Transport Carrier & Cable) * 1.00 (High Cost Fund
Differential) * .88 (SLU Adj)         244.84 (Adj Nat'l Avg Investment in Transport per
Loop)].  Company A Gross Investment in Transport Cable and Carrier - [S 105.38
(Company' A Avg) - S 139.46 (Adj Nat'l Avg) = -S 0.00 (Company Gross Loop
Allocation to Universal Service Fund).  NOTE: Because the Transport Gross
Investment per Loop allocated to Universal Service Fund is negative. the Subscriber
Gross Investment per Loop allocated to the Cost Study would be increased bv S
139.46  and the Subscriber Gross Investment per Loop allocated to the Universal
Service Fund would be decreased bv     139.46

RECAP FOR COMPANY A
	Cost Per Loop	Loops	Cost Study	Univ   Serv    Fund
Switching	$327.06	2.533	$      828,443
	$133.71	2.5		338.687
Common          LineS	571.02	2.567	S     1,465,808
	$845.87	'-'. 5 6 7		S 2.1-/ I,-)48
Transport	$  105.')8	2.567	S       270,510
	$-0.00	'-?. 5 6 7		$     -O-
Adj Corn Lin	$  1')9.46	@@.567	$      @)57,994
A4i Corn Lin	$  -1')9.46	'-.567		')57,994

TOTAL    (Difference    due    to     rounding)                 S   2,92'-),755             S 2.152.041

          Calculation of Universal Service Funding Allocations Amounts for Co B:

          National  Average  Switch  Investment  per  Loop  allocated  to  the  Cost  Studv  [$  40'  )  .7   8
            1.00   (High   Cost   Fund   Differential)   *   .86   (SMOU   Adj)	'@47.'-)5   (Adj   National
          Averap-e    Investment    for    Switching    per    loop)].     Companv	               B     Average     Switch
          Investment per Loop [$ 507.3 8 (Companv A Avg) - $ 347.251	    160.  1  -'I   (Company
          Gross   Switch   Investment   to   High   Cost    Fund)

National Average Subscriber Investment per Loop allocated to the Cost Study
[S892.22 (National Avg for Subscriber Carrier & Cable) * 1.00 (High Cost Fund
Differential) * .69 (SLU Adj) = $ 615.6') (Adj National Average Investment for
Subscriber Cable and Carrier per Loop)].  Company B Gross Investment in
Subscriber Cable and Carrier per Loop [$1,058.95 (Company B Avg) - $615.6'0
(Adj Nat'l Avg) = $443.')2 (Company Gross Investment in Subscriber Cable and
Carrier per Loop Allocation to Universal Service Fund), [($44).')2 * O'-?7 (Cat 4.1')
to Total CL)           11.96 (Universal Service Fund Allocation Per MTS Loop to Cat

4.13)], [($443.32 * .973 (Cat I C&-WF to Total CL) = S431.36 (Universal Service
Fund Allocation Per MTS Loop of Cat I C&WF)].

National  Average  Transport   Investment   per   Loop   allocated   to   the   Cost   Study   [S
'@78.2')  (-Nat'l  Av5y  Cost  for  Transport  Carrier  &  Cable)  *   1.00   (Hi!Zh   Cost   Fund
Differential) * .8--; (SLU  Adj)  =  S  '-')6.50  (Adj  Nat'l  Avg  Investment  in  Transport  per
Loop)].  Companv  B  Gross  Investment  in   Transport   Cable   and   Carrier   -   [S   2'--@.30
(Companv B Avg) - S  2')6.50 (Adj Nat'l Ava                     0.00    (Company    Gross     Loop
Allocation   to    Universal    Service    Fund).    NOTE:    Because    the    Transport    Gross
Investment  per  Loop  allocated  to  UniversaJ  Service  Fund   is   nezative.   the   Subscriber
Gross  Investment  per  Loop  allocated  to  the  Cost   Study   would   be   increased   b-,-   S
11.20  and   the   Subscriber   Gross   Investment   per   Loop   allocated   to   the   Universal
Service  Fund  would  be  decreased  bv   S   1   1.20

RECAP FOR	COMPANY B
         A	Cost Per LoopLoops	Cost Study	Univ   Sen,    Fund
Switchiniz	S    'j47.25650	S   2'?-5.713
	S    160.1')650		S  104.084
Common Line	S  615.63662	S   407.547
	S    44).'))662		293.478
Transport	S    225.')O662	$149,149
	$-0.00662		$     -O-
Adj Corn Lin	S    'I 1.20662	$7.414
Adj Corn Lin	$- 11.20662		7.414


TOTAL (Difference due to rounding)                            $ 797.2')7 S  390.148

          The purpose of the usage. adjustment is to reflect the average value associated with
each subscriber line on a nationwide basis to the value associated on a companv wide basis.  
Subscribers usincg more minutes of use than the nationwide average have alreadv placed a
greater value on their telephone and would be willing to pay more for the facility.  A higher
average usage per access line would generally reflect a larger calling area or some type of
plan for greater calling area.  The usage adjustment will help keep the cost per minute of use
somewhat similar on a nationwide basis and encourage more usage or larger calling areas.
even if local rates have to rise to include a larger calling area.  Currently larger calling areas
in rural areas can become too expensive for the subscriber due to the high costs allocated
from the intrastate jurisdiction. therebv leaving switching plant in rural areas under utilized.  
Getting more usage per subscriber, will bring costs per unit down in rural areas and enhance
the value of telephone service on a national scale.


PUBLIC INTEREST

Advantages Of The Plan

1.	This plan takes into account the usage per access line  in  developing  the  high
cost fund pavments. This would allow  for  local  rates  to  be  based  on  usage
(even  though  thev  would  be  flat  rated).  This  would  also   promote   less
disparity in local  rates  between  similar  telephone  companies  and  between
urban and rural areas.

2.	This plan levels access rates to approximately $.O3 - $.05 per minute between
	carriers and between  Jurisdictions  and  makes  the  transport  access  charges
	traffic insensitive. This should attract interexchange competition in  the  rural
	toll market because the ability  to  "cherry  pick"  would  be  severely  hampered
	or eliminated. The cost for urban  or  rural  access  charges  per  minute  would
	be nearly the same.

3.	This plan through the fact that as usage per access line increase, decreases  the
	amount  taken  from  the  Universal  Service  Fund  would   make   all   carriers
	(Local  and  Interexchange)  more  responsible  for  Universal  Service.   Though
	the use of flat rate calling plans and  expanded  calling  areas  the  usage  per
	access  line  would  increase  and  the  Universal   Service   Fund   requirement
	would decrease.

4.	This plan eliminates all other types  of  support  such  as  Long  Term  Support.
	DEM Weighincg, RIC Charges and etc. except for Lifeline and Link-Up.

	This  plan  provides  for  Universal  Service  Funding  on   a   current   basis.
	Therefore small companies with big  expansion  projects  do  not  have  to  wait
	for two vears to receive a return on the portion  of  their  investment  that  is
	allocated to USF. The plan  would  eliminate  the  need  for  the  5%  Limitation
	on the phase down of SPF.

6.	This  plan  maintains  an  incentive  for  telephone  companies  to  keep   rural
	America connected.

7.	This plan would eliminate anv need for intrastate high cost funds.

8.	This plan could be adapted  to  all  rural  areas,  even  those  owned  by  large
	LECS. The large LEC's  could  break  out  their  costs  based  on  investment  in
	urban (exchanges that are included  in  or  touch  any  Metropolitan  Statistical
	Areas  -  MSA)  exchanges  and  rural  (non-MSA)  exchanges  on  the  same  basis
	as Part 36 Jurisdictional  Separations  Procedures.  The  USF  funding  for  the
rural exchanges could be calculated in the same manner as the funding for
non-pnce cap companies.  There would be no Universal Service Funding for
urban areas. only Lifeline and Link--Up funding calculated using a different
formula.  This plan would eliminate much of the implicit Universal Service
Funding found today between urban and rural areas of the lar-e LECS.

     The following color graphs, based on 1994 data, demonstrate the application
and effect of the Per Minute of Use Universal Service Plan.

Notes And Comments On The Graphs

The allocation of local loop cost to special access is based on the usage
adjusted common line gross investment.  It appears reasonable to allocate
special access on an unadjusted basis or on the national average cost per loop.  
Special access on an adjusted basis would onlv promote bypass.

2.	Graph ITCS, Inc. GRB 7, shows companies 2,        and I I with very  high  local
rates based on revenue requirement. It should be noted that  all  three  of  the
companies  had  transport  gross  investment  allocated  to  the  common   line
because transport gross investment  was  below  the  national  average  adjusted
for  usasge.  Normally,  no  transport  investment  is  included  in  the  local
jurisdiction  except  for  Exchange  Trunk  and   some   Host/Remote   Facilities.
This could have a detrimental effect on some companies.

The gross  investment  for   Tandem   Switching   was   included   with   Local
Switching. It could have been broken out  and  included  with  transport  gross
investment for calculation the USF allocations.

4.This  plan  currently  does  not  include   Exchange   Wideband.   Interexchange
Wideband, or Furnished Another Company Facilities.

5.This  plan  does  not  include  pay  phones  -  those  required  bv  the   State
Commission's   as   minimum   service   requirements.   This   plan   could   be
modified to  include  payphones  required  bv  the  State  Commissions  for  the
provision of minimum service to rural areas.

a.Graph  ITCS,  Inc.  -  GRB  I  only  includes  the  four  major  categories   of
expenses shown. It does not include taxes or return.

b.Graph ITCS, Inc. - GRB 2 - 8 include all expenses including  taxes  and  return.

c.Graph ITCS, Inc. - GRB 10 is the allocation of gross investment.

d.	Graph ITCS. Inc. - GRB 8 is average local  rates  per  top  prior  to  any
reductions for other local revenues which may average approximately $5.00
per loop.

e.	In addition to the transport problems noted for companies 2. 3  and  I  1.
companies 2 and I I have high costs per loop and have taken  or  are  taking
measures to remedv this situation. All three companies have high  usage  per
access lines of approximately 80% or more of the nationwide  average  usage
per access line. All three companies have large  calling  areas  and  little
intrastate intraLATA calling remaining after making the large calling  areas
local calling.

f.	Graph ITCS. Inc. - GPB 12 is the expenses  per  dollar  invested  in  common
line. switching and transport onlv.


Respectfully Submitted,



David A. Irwin

Counsel for ITCS, Inc.
Irwin,  Campbell  &  Tannenwald,  P.C.
1730 Rhode Island Ave.. N.W.
Washington. DC 20036
(202) 728-0400




ITCS. Inc.
4775 Barnes Road. Suite M
Colorado Springs, Co. 80917
(719) 574-5120