1 Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56 (to be codified at 47 U.S.C. secs. 151 et seq.). Citation in these Reply Comments will be made to the Act unless otherwise indicated.

2 Citizens for a Sound Economy Foundation at 14.

3 With cellular service, for instance, these distinctions have generally been eliminated as uneconomic.

4 For example, the obligation to serve any customer in the territory for which the carrier is certified.

5 Ameritech at 3-4; 11-12; 21-22.

6 E.g. Airtouch at 10; Western Wireless at 11; Sprint at 17; LTS at 6, 7, 14; Information Technology Industry Council at 10; Winstar at 11; Bell Atlantic at 13; LCI at 4.

7 MCI at 6.

8 TCI at 3. See also Airtouch at 5, 8-9; Wash. Util. and Trans. Comm. at 3; Idaho Public Util. Comm. at 3; Frontier at 3; TELEC at 5.

9 Citizens for a Sound Economy Foundation at 2-3.

10 See AARP at 20; Texas Office of Public Util. Council at 14.

11 Hatfield Associates, The Cost of Basic Universal Service, July 1994.

12 Monson and Rohlfs, The $20 Billion Impact of Local Competition in Telecommunications, July 1993.

13 E.g. MCI at 13; NCTA at 7; New York DPS at 7; TRA at 11; LTS at 8; Wisconsin PSC at 9 (leaving open to possibility of a phase-out).

14 E.g. NECA at 7; Oregon/Washington Tel. Assn. at 9; Century at 12; RTC at 15; Small Western LECs at 10; TELEC at 8.

15 Section 254(e)(ÒAny such [universal service] support should be explicit ... .Ó).

16 AT&T's demand that the Commission overhaul the entire cost basis for access charges is clearly beyond the scope of this proceeding. The NPRM in this proceeding focuses on universal service and, therefore, it is appropriate -- indeed, necessary -- for the Commission to address the subsidies in access charges associated with universal service, such as the CCL. Any other issue AT&T wishes to raise with respect to access charges in general should be assigned to another docket which the Commission may open in the future.

17 E.g. Citizens for a Sound Economy Foundation at 14; Information Technology Industry Council at 12; Compuserve at 6-7; Reed, Smith, Shaw & McClay at 9; MFS at 22; Frontier at fn. 23; Bell Atlantic at 3, 11; TRA at 13; LTS at 8; MCI at 6, 12; GVNW at 11; Interactive Services Assn. at 18; Time Warner at 19-20.

18 Bell Atlantic at 10; Florida PSC at 22.

19 AARP at 15-16.

20 Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission at 20.

21 Missouri PSC at 2, 20-21.

22 Local exchange carriers should be able to increase SLCs in those areas where they are not recovering the full cost of the loop from basic local service rates. In those areas where the full cost of the loop is being recovered in basic local rates, the SLC should not be increased automatically.

23 Local exchange carriers incur costs in providing the local loop and are entitled to recover those costs regardless of how the loop is used, including use by resellers. Therefore, the price of the loop must reflect the underlying costs.

24 Ameritech at 22-24.

25 E.g. Texas Dept. of Info. Res. at 1; Citizens for a Sound Economy at 16; NYDPS at 10; Wyoming PSC at 3; PacTel at 21; NCTA at 23-24; MCI at 12; Alliance for Distance Education in Calif. at 2; CWA at 10; Oregon PSC at 7-8; Va. Rural Telcos at 6; PTI at 3; TELEC at 17.

26 MFS at 23.

27 Reed, Smith, Shaw & McClay at 5, 8-10; Vanguard at 3; but see PCIA at 6 (CMRS providers should only support federal USF); CTIA at 1-2 (federal only); Western Wireless at 5; Airtouch at 3-4.

28 Section 254(b)(4).

29 Section 254(d).

30 Section 254(f).

31 Given this plain language, those claiming an exemption bear an especially heavy burden of proof. See Metricom at 3 (exempt unlicensed Part 15 providers); Mobile Media (exempt paging); Comsat at 1-3 (exempt Comsat).

32 E.g. Western Wireless at 5, 11-13; NYDPS; Maine Public Service Commission at 20; LTS at 18; MCI at 12; see also Time Warner at 21; Sprint at 17.

33 360 at 2, 9; Wisc. PSC at 19.

34 Bell Atlantic at 3.

35 Frontier at 10.

36 There is absolutely no reason why carriers operating under price regulation should be ineligible for universal service support.

37 Winstar at 2, 7; PacTel at 13-14; NCTA at 3; TCI at 14; MCI at 8-9; but see Texas Department of Information Resources at 2 (exempt PCS providers in rural areas); Frontier at 9 (only the winning bidder in high-cost areas should be eligible).

38 E.g. Citizens for a Sound Economy Foundation at 13 (there should be Òa nondiscriminatory approach to choosing eligible providers ... .Ó).

39 Section 102 of the Act.

40 47 U.S.C. 214(e)(1)("A common carrier designated as an eligible telecommunications carrier under paragraph (2) or (3) shall be eligible to receive universal service support ...").

41 E.g. Ad Hoc Telecommunications Users Committee at 4; ACTA at 5; MFS at 16; Frontier at 2; Sprint at 6; ICORE at 7; U.S. Small Business Assn. at 6; Virginia Rural Telcos at 3; TELEC at 4.

42 AARP at 9;

43 Alaska PSC at 2, 4; MCI at 16; Small Western LECs at 13; Century at 8.

44 SWB at 8, fn. 19; Penn. Rural Development Council at 5; National Association of Development Organizations at 8; GVNW at 9; U.S. Small Business at 8; RTC at 8.

45 Section 254(c). Arguments to the contrary notwithstanding (Kinko's Inc. at 7; Florida PSC at 4), use of the conjunction "and" in Section 254(c)(1)(C) means that the Commission must consider all four factors when deciding which telecommunications services should receive universal service support. Moreover, as a matter of logic, it is difficult to see how a particular service could be "essential to education, public health, or public safety" (Section 254(c)(1)(A)) without being "subscribed to by a substantial majority of residential customers." Section 254(c)(1)(B).

46 Section 254(c)(1).

47 47 U.S.C. Sections 153(46) and (43).

48 Accord Information Industry Technology Council at 7-8; U.S. Distance Learning Assn. at 6-7; Continental at 4; NARUC at 10; Sprint at 7-8; LCI at 3; MCI at 22; Ad Hoc Telecommunications Users Committee at 4; Apple Computer at 8.

49 Section 254(c)(1)(B)(when defining the services supported by universal service funds, requires the Commission to consider whether the service has "been subscribed to by a substantial majority of residential customers ...")(emphasis added).

50 The benchmark rate could be based on various measures, such as statewide average rates, costs for "core" services, or a specified percentage of statewide median income.

51 As noted earlier in this reply, a carrier should be eligible if, and only if, it has the same regulatory obligations as the incumbent local exchange provider.

52 Citizens for a Sound Economy Foundation at 8, fn. 14 (subsidized high-cost rates should not be lower than the rates charged to those who provide the subsidy support); Winstar at 6 (same); Bell Atlantic at 6; Florida PSC at 8 (establish a benchmark rate); Frontier at 6-7 (benchmark rate based on 75% of neighboring large LEC); Sprint at 9; Citizens Utility at 10 (benchmark rate at 1 standard deviation above national average); Ad Hoc Telecommunications Users Committee at 18-20.

53 NCTA at 8-10; Time Warner at 9.

54 Citizens for a Sound Economy Foundation at 11; Winstar at 9; Indiana PUC at 8; Wisconsin PSC; Michigan PSC; Alaska PSC: NYDPS at 6; Maine PSC at 5, 9;

55 This means that the subsidy can be paid to the provider, but must be for the benefit of the customer.

56 Citizens for a Sound Economy Foundation at 6-7; Airtouch at 11-12; MFS at 13; Frontier at 5; LTS at 3, 13, and 14.

57 The discount must be the same for interstate and intrastate services in order to prevent arbitrage.

58 National School Boards Assn. et al. at 13.

59 North of Boston Library Exchange, Inc. at 1.

60 See text accompanying footnotes 46-48 supra.

61 There are some budgetary considerations, however, which cannot be accommodated. For example, and notwithstanding the arguments to the contrary (e.g. National School Boards Assn. et al. at 24), a school charging lab fees or user fees to defray expenses would violate the resale prohibitions in the Act. Section 254(h)(3)

62 See Attachment A.

63 See Attachment B.

64 LTS at 18-19 (universal service funds should be disbursed by a neutral administrator with no ties to any carrier); LCI at 1, 6 (a non-affiliated, non-partisan entity should preside over the administration of universal service funds); ICA at 5; Information Technology Industry Council at 10; Winstar at 11; Airtouch at 11; NCTA at 25; Sprint at 23; TRA at 14; ACTA at 13.

65 Georgia PSC at 3; Bell Atlantic at 6.

66 NECA at 19; Farmers at 5; Ardmore at 5; Blountsville at 5.