[1] For example, the inadequacy of the existing fund which penalizes study areas with more than 200,000 lines has led to fairly high local rates in both Vermont and West Virginia, and therefore it should not be deemed that such rates comply with the act.

[2] Telecommunications Act of 1996, [[section]] 214(b)(3).

[3] The comparison of rates should also consider the size of the Subscriber Line Charge. Many urban residential customers pay less than the $3.50 maximum SLC.

[4]Telecommunications Act of 1996, [[section]] 254(b)(3).

[5]The proxy models do predict cost, and cost in a competitive environment can be presumed to be predictive of rates.

[6]See, Wyoming Public Service Commission's Reply Comments at paragraph 4(b).

[7]Telecommunications Act of 1996, [[section]] 214(b)(3).

[8]Size discrimination in support for switching cost is discussed in the next section.

[9]It is also true that many densely populated areas also have a high proportion of business lines who pay significantly higher rates, but who do not impose significantly

higher cost.

[10]Section 254 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 requires that any mechanisms used by the Commission to support universal service must be explicit. Telecommunications Act of 1996, [[section]] 254(e).

[11]Furthermore, the traditional cost of service review afforded by state commissions will not likely be applied to the accounts of new local service providers.

[12]Many state price cap plans expressly provide for rate adjustments following changes in high cost assistance levels.

[13]Montana abstains from comment on this question because it has a similar question pending before it in state proceedings.