[2] Telecommunications Act of 1996, Public L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat 56(1996) (hereafter, 1996 Act).

[3] Notice, para. 11, p. 7.

[4] The 1996 Act, Conference Report, p. 1 and the Joint Explanatory Statement, p. 113, explicitly state that the goal of the Act is

to accelerate rapidly private sector deployment of advanced telecommunications and information technologies and services to all Americans.

[6] Notice, para. 4, p. 4.

[7] Notice, para. 12, P. 8.

[8] Notice, para. 14, p. 9.

[9] Para 112, p. 45.

[10] Para. 113, p. 46.

[11] Notice, para. 113, p. 46.

[12] Notice, para. 114, pp. 46-47.

[13] Notice, para. 114, pp. 46-47.

[14] Notice, para. 114, p. 47.

[15] That portion of the CCL which is identified in the Notice, para. 115, p. 47, as explicit support payments remitted to the National Exchange Carrier Association as long term support, can be transformed into explicit subsidies recovered from an explicit universal support mechanism. These payments are, essentially, a tax, unlike the remainder of the CCL which is a fee for charged the IXCs for using a joint and common facility.

[16] 1996 Act, p. 1.

[17] Notice, para. 14, p. 9.

[18] Notice, note 12, p. 5.

[19] Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Philip Babcock Grove (Ed.), (Merriam-Webster Inc., Springfield Mass, 1986), p. 36.

[20] Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition (1995), p. 20.

[21] Random House Webster's College Dictionary (Random House, Hew York; 1995), p. 24.

[22] Notice, para. 4, p. 5

[23] Notice, note 13, p. 5.

[24] Notice, para. 114, p. 46.

[25] Notice, para. 25, p. 15.

[26] "Rebuttal Testimony of Dr. Marvin Kahn, on Behalf of the Office of the Attorney General," Before the State Corporation Commission of Virginia, In the Matter of Evaluating Investigating the Telephone Regulatory Case No. PUC930036 Methods Pursuant to Virginia Code S. 56-235.5, Cause No. PUC930036, March 15, 1994 and "Prefiled Testimony of David Gable on Behalf of the Indiana Office of Utility Consumer Counselor," Before the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission, In the Matter of Petition of Indiana Bell Telephone Company, Incorporated for the Commission to Decline to Exercise in Part Its Jurisdiction Over Petitioner's Provision of Basic Local Exchange Service and Carrier Access Service, to Utilize alternative Regulatory Procedures for Petitioner's Provision of Basic Local Exchange Service and Carrier Access Service, and to Decline to Exercise in Whole Its Jurisdiction Over all other Aspects of Petitioner and Its Provision of All Other Telecommunications Service and Equipment, Pursuant to IC 8-1-2.6, Cause Number 39705, January 1994, estimate the productivity offset in the rate of 7 percent per year in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

[27] Notice, para 14, p. 9, para 15, p. 10, and para 16. p. 10.

[28] Notice, paras. 18-22.

[29] Notice, para 17, p. 11 and para 23, p. 14.

[30] Notice, para. 9, p. 6.

[31] Notice para. 50-56, seeks comments on additional services and policies to promote universal service among lower income households.

[32] Para. 40.