[2] See 1996 Monitoring Report, CC Docket No. 80-286 at 17, Table 1.2.

[3] Telephone Subscribership in the United States, FCC CCB Industry Analysis Division at 24 (Dec. 1995).

[4] 1990 Census of Population and Housing, Summary Social, Economic, and Housing Characteristics, PUERTO RICO, 1990 CPH-5-53 (1993) at 191.

[5] 1990 Census Summary of Social, Economic, and Housing Characteristics, UNITED STATES, 1990 CPH-5-1 (1992) at 228.

[6] 1995 Monitoring Report at 24.

[7] This number is derived by finding the estimated annual increase in revenue requirement per additional local loop. See 1995 Monitoring Report, Tables 3.5 at 84 (Unseparated NTS Revenue Requirement) and Table 3.6 at 85 (Number of Loops).

Year-end Year-end Increase

1992 1993 (1993-1992)

1. Unseparated NTS

Revenue Requirement $ 34,069,278,000 $ 36,002,857,000 $ 1,933,579,000

2. Number of Loops 143,492,443 148,190,420 4,697,977

3. Cost per Loop (1/2) $ 237.43 $ 242.95 $ 411.58

The estimated annual cost per incremental loop installed during 1993 is the quotient of the annual increase in Unseparated NTS Revenue Requirement (from 1992 to 1993) divided by the annual increase in Number of Loops (from 1992-1993).

[8] 1995 Monitoring Report at 14.

[9] Preparation for Addressing Universal Service Issues: A Review of Current Interstate Support Mechanisms, Common Carrier Bureau (1996) at 16.

[10] Telephone Subscribership in the United States, FCC CCB Industry Analysis Division at 24 (Dec. 1995).

[11] Joint Explanatory Statement at 131.

[12] 1990 Census of Population and Housing, Summary Social, Economic, and Housing Characteristics, PUERTO RICO, 1990 CPH-5-53 (1993) at 191.

[13] 1990 Census Summary of Social, Economic, and Housing Characteristics, UNITED STATES, 1990 CPH-5-1 (1992) at 228.

[14] 1995 Monitoring Report at 24.

[15] See, e.g., American Association of Retired Persons, Consumer Federation of America, and Consumers Union at 21 ("low-income households are the households most likely to drop off the network as a result of rising prices"); Ad Hoc Telecommunications Committee at 20 ("household income is a major factor of subscribership, and the need, if any, for universal service support"); California Department of Consumer Affairs at 13 ("the universal service subsidy should be targeted on consumers who would not have access to the networks without the subsidy"); Frontier Corporation at 5 ("the Joint Board should recommend that universal service support be carefully targeted to needy users"); Information Industry Association at 5 ("universal service should be targeted to those parts of the nation that are in greatest need"); NCTA at 14 ("anyone living below the poverty level"); New Jersey Department of the Treasury at 16 (noting that "poverty per se is a major barrier to participation" in the telecommunications market); TCI at 11 ("subsidies should be carefully targeted to those [consumers] in need of demonstrable support").

[16] See Citizens for a Sound Economy Foundation at 7 (proposing that low-income recipients be identified according to food stamp eligibility or status of being below the poverty line); Florida Public Service Commission at 17 (proposing that low-income recipients be identified according to receipt of Earned Income Credit); LDDS Worldcom at 13 (proposing that low-income recipients be identified according to "means-testing"); Missouri Public Service Commission at 12 (proposing that low-income recipients be identified according to "an existing support mechanism so as to avoid creating cumbersome and expensive infrastructure").