²See comments of the Staff of the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission at 8: "The proposed proxy models fail to recognize the costs of providing local exchange service in specific areas - a significant flaw . . . ."

³See comments of NASUCA at 4 and comments of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission at 4.

⁴See comments of the Alaska Library Association (ALA)at 4-5.

⁵See comments of the Florida Public Service Commission (FPSC) at 7.

⁶See the comments of the American Association of Retired Persons, Consumer Federation of America, and Consumers Union (AARP) at 7. See comments of the Competitive Telecommunications Association (CTA) at 7.

⁷See comments of PTI at 3.

⁸The FPSC; Keystone-Arthur Telephone Company (Keystone); Matanuska Telephone Association, Inc.; Montana Public Service Commission; the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC); and the Alaska Telephone Association, among others, all support a phase-in period.

⁹For example, see comments of the Illinois Commerce Commission at 5.

¹⁰For example, several commentors would not provide funding to interexchange services, while others contend that the basic core services provide all essential functions and access to critical fire, police, and medical facilities. See comments of AT&T at 12-13; GCI at 5-7; Bellsouth Corporation, Bellsouth Telecommunications, Inc. (Bellsouth), at 6.

¹¹See comments of the APUC. See comments of the ALA at 9.

¹²"POTS" refers to "Plain Old Telephone Service".

¹³ See comments of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York Administrative Law Committee at 17.

¹⁴See comments of Kinko's Inc., at i-iii, regarding provision of free Internet services to Americans with computer facilities; and RUS at 10, regarding modem usage in the United States. See also comments of Distance Delivery Consortium (DDC) at 1, and ALA. at 9.

¹⁵See comments of RUS at 10.

¹⁶See comments of the ALA at 9, DDC at 1-2, State of Alaska at 11, and RUS at 10-11.

¹⁷For example, see comments of the Library of Michigan at i.

¹⁸See comments of AT&T at 12, n. 15.

¹⁹Several parties advocate one or all of the above criteria of affordability. See comments of the California Department of Consumer Affairs at 18-19; AARP at i, 6; Keystone at 8; NASUCA at i, 4; and the New York State Department. of Public Service at 2-5.

²⁰See comments of Keystone at 8.

²¹See comments of the FPSC at 5. MCI, at ii, also suggests a targeted rate of $20/month be employed.

²²For example, the American Libraries Association, at i, proposes that rates be based on the lowest tariff rate or the total service, long-run incremental costs.

²³See comments of the NSB at 23. The APUC has not fully evaluated all of the details proposed by the NSB on this matter and, therefore, can only endorse the proposal in concept.

²⁴See comments of NASUCA at 15, 23.

²⁵See comments of Bellsouth at 12.

²⁶See comment of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission, at 17, and the comments of the State of Maine Public Utilities Commission, et. al.

²⁷See comments of NARUC 17.

²⁸See comments of GCI at 11 which propose that competitors alone be able to determine their own study areas.