[2] The terms "enhanced services" and "information services" are used synonymously herein.

[3] For local exchange carriers and cellular carriers, see, e.g., Comments of Airtouch Communications at 10, 14; Comments of Ameritech at 6-7; Comments of Bell Atlantic at 7; Comments of BellSouth at 5-6; Comments of Cincinnati Bell at 4; Comments of GTE at 2; Comments of NYNEX at 1-2; Comments of United States Telephone Association ("USTA") at 4. For cable companies, see, e.g., Comments of National Cable Television Association ("NCTA") at 5-6; Comments of Time Warner Communications at 3-4. For interexchange carriers, see, e.g., Comments of Competitive Telecommunications Association at 6; Comments of MCI at 9; Comments of Sprint at 6-8. For federal agencies, see, e.g., Comments of U.S. Small Business Administration at 5-6; Comments of General Services Administration at 7. For state public utilities commissions, see, e.g., Comments of Florida Public Service Commission at 6-8; Comments of New York State Department of Public Service at 12-13; Comments of Texas Public Utility Commission at 8. For information technology companies, see, e.g., Comments of Netscape at 13-14; Comments of Information Industry Association ("IIA") at 3; Joint Comments of Information Technology Association of America ("ITAA") and Electronic Messaging Association ("EMA") at 4-10.

[4] Comments of NASUCA at 17-18.

[5] Comments of Sprint at 8. See also Comments of NCTA at 5 ("Expanding the list to include other services could act as a barrier to entry for competing LECs ('CLECs') because it may force unwarranted subsidies onto competitors or give incumbent LECs control over an even greater number of essential elements of the local exchange."); Comments of Citizens Utilities at 4 ("Viewing the new statutory universal service policy as a 'Christmas tree' to accommodate any possible desire for telecommunications services . . . would impose an impossible social burden upon the telecommunications industry.").

[6] See, e.g., Comments of Western Alliance at 12 & n.22; Comments of Evans Telephone et al. at 13 n.9.

[7] See, e.g., Comments of Access to Communications For Education Coalition ("ACE") at 7; Comments of Library of Michigan at 4.

[8] See, e.g., Comments of Kinko's (passim) (advocates giving vouchers to consumers so that they can access and utilize Internet information); Comments of Ohio Public Utilities Commission at 9; Comments of ACE at 6-7; Comments of Library of Michigan at 4.

[9] Joint Comments of ITAA and EMA at 4-10.

[10] 47 U.S.C. [[section]] 254(c)(1) (emphasis added).

[11] S. Rep. No. 23, 104th Cong., 1st Sess. 17-18 (1995) (emphasis added). In the conference report accompanying the 1996 Act, Congress accepted the Senate's definition of "telecommunications," which excluded information services. See H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 458, 104th Cong., 2d Sess. 116 (1996) ("The House recedes to the Senate with amendments with respect to the definition[] of . . . 'telecommunications.'"). For additional legislative analysis of the 1996 Act, see Joint Comments of ITAA and EMA at 4-10; Comments of ITI at 5-7; Comments of Interactive Services Association ("ISA") at 6-9; Comments of Netscape at 13-14.

[12] See, e.g., Comments of Pacific Telesis at 5 ("Under the Act, telecommunications providers fund access to the network and connections within the schools. A different funding mechanism must be designed for the remainder of the components needed for a successful program.") (emphasis in original); Comments of Competitive Telecommunications Association at 6; Joint Comments of ITAA and EMA at 10; Comments of IIA at 3; Comments of ITI at 11.

[13] See Comments of Alaska Public Utilities Commission at 2 (Internet access involves local-dialing access); Comments of Pacific Telesis at 4 (Internet access involves the provision of 128 kbps ISDN lines); Comments of US WEST at 22-23 (Internet access involves the provision of 56 kbps circuits and toll-free dial-up access).

[14] Comments of ISA at 8-9. See also Comments of CompuServe at 11.

[15] See, e.g., Comments of Kinko's (passim); Comments of ACE at 6-7; Comments of Library of Michigan at 4; Comments of Alaska Public Utilities Commission at 2.

[16] Kinko's conclusory assertions that Internet access meets the criteria of Section 254(c)(1) are unsupported and should be rejected. See Comments of Kinko's at 7.

[17] See Comments of Kinko's at 11-12 ("Community Internet Access Centers . . . would offer the public computers, modems, and printers for Internet Access. Internet Access vouchers could be distributed to qualifying consumers who could use them . . . at the Community Internet Access Centers.") (emphasis added).

[18] Comments of Apple Computer at 1.

[19] Id. at 8. See also Comments of Netscape at 12 ("Universal service policy can best achieve the objectives of the Act by promoting the growth of the Internet under the existing non-regulated market structure. . . . [I]t would be extremely unwise as a policy matter for the Commission to intervene in the autonomous, efficient self-administration of the Internet.").

[20] See Comments of US WEST at 7 n.12 (describing Project Hope Box which provides unemployed individuals with voice mail capability); Comments of Ameritech at 8 n.15. See also Comments of ITAA, Amendment of the Commission's Rules and Policies to Increase Subscribership and Usage of the Public Switched Network, CC Docket No. 95-115, at 6 (filed Sep. 27, 1995) (competition and innovation spurred by nonregulation of enhanced services have driven down the price of voice mail and made it increasingly affordable for schools, churches, and other public service organizations to provide voice mail services to their constituents).

[21] For local exchange carriers, see, e.g., Comments of Bell Atlantic at 14; Comments of BellSouth at 15; Comments of NYNEX at 24 & n.39; Comments of Southwestern Bell at 20. For interexchange carriers and competitive access providers, see, e.g., Comments of Telecommunications Resellers Association at 4-8; Comments of MCI at 15-16; Comments of MFS Communications at 23-24. For state public utilities commissions, see, e.g., Comments of Florida Public Service Commission at 24; Comments of New York State Department of Public Service at 2, 9-10. For enhanced service providers, see, e.g., Comments of CompuServe at 11-16; Comments of ISA at 5-15; Comments of IIA at 6-7; Comments of ITI at 9-10; Comments of Commercial Internet Exchange Association at 3. For private network operators, see, e.g., Comments of International Communications Association at 4-5; Comments of NRF at 4-5; Comments of OpTel at 2; Comments of UTC at 9.

[22] Joint Comments of ITAA and EMA at 17-19; Comments of ITI at 9-10; Comments of IIA at 6-7; Comments of NRF at 4-5.

[23] See, e.g., Comments of International Communications Association at 4-5; Comments of MFS Communications 24; Comments of OpTel at 2; Comments of UTC at 9-10.

[24] Comments of NRF at 4. See 47 U.S.C. [[section]][[section]] 153(49),(51).

[25] See, e.g., Comments of America's Carriers Telecommunication Association ("ACTA") at 12; Comments of Hopper Telecommunications at 5; Comments of United Utilities at 5.

[26] See Comments of NRF at 5 ("Operators of private networks already fund USF indirectly through their general use of and subsequent payment for telecommunications services."); Comments of ITI at 9 ("[L]eased line private networks have already been 'taxed' indirectly through rates charged by the underlying facilities provider. Requiring a further, direct contribution from such providers would be double taxation.").

[27] For parties in favor of exempting de minimis providers, see Comments of MFS Communications at 23 ("For administrative ease, the Commission should exempt carriers with less than a 1% market share as it presently exempts carriers with less than a 1/2% market share . . . from contributing to the USF."); Comments of U.S. Small Business Administration at 9-11.

[28] See, e.g., Comments of ACTA at 12; Comments of LCI International at 5; Comments of Ameritech at 23 n.35; Comments of Pacific Telesis at 20-21; Comments of Communications Workers of America at 10-11.

[29] 47 U.S.C. [[section]] 254(d) (emphasis added).

[30] See Comments of CompuServe at 7-16; Comments of ISA at 6-11. See also Comments of Netscape at 13-14 ("The Act does not currently permit the FCC to impose universal service support obligations on ISPs, OSPs and other Internet service providers, since as 'information service' providers these entities are not subject to the requirement of Section 254(d) . . . .").

[31] Comments of CompuServe at 16 (emphasis in original). Imposing contribution obligations on Internet access and other enhanced services would not only be illegal, it would be contrary to sound public policy. See Comments of Commercial Internet Exchange Association at 3 ("[T]he public interest points strongly against subjecting Internet access to universal service charges that may artificially distort and hinder innovation in this vibrant sector of the American economy and may impede low cost availability of service."); Comments of Netscape at 15.

[32] Comments of LDDS Worldcom at 3.

[33] Comments of USTA at 24.

[34] Amendment of Section 64.702 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations (Second Computer Inquiry), 77 F.C.C.2d 384, 430 (1980) [hereinafter "Computer II Decision"]. See also Computer & Communications Industry Association v. FCC, 693 F.2d 198, 204-05 (D.C. Cir. 1982), cert. denied sub nom., Louisiana Public Service Commission v. FCC, 461 U.S. 938 (1983) [hereinafter "CCIA v. FCC"].

[35] Computer II Decision, 77 F.C.C.2d at 425.

[36] Id. at 420.

[37] Id. at 428.

[38] Id. at 429.

[39] CCIA v. FCC, 693 F.2d at 210 (emphasis added). See also Comments of CompuServe at 16 (The 1996 Act's statutory distinction between information and telecommunications services confirms the continued viability of the Commission's Computer II distinction between basic and enhanced services).

[40] For local exchange carriers, see, e.g., Comments of Ameritech at 11-12, 21-22; Comments of GTE at 14-16; Comments of Pacific Telesis at 12-15; Comments of US WEST at 4. For interexchange carriers and competitive access providers, see, e.g., Comments of AT&T at 4-7; Comments of MCI at 2-7, 14-15; Comments of MFS Communications at 13-15; Comments of LCI International at 4-5; Comments of LDDS Worldcom at 18; Comments of Sprint at 20. For enhanced service and software providers, see, e.g., Comments of CompuServe at 4-7; Comments of IIA at 5-6; Joint Comments of ITAA and EMA at 10-14; Comments of ITI at 12; Comments of Netscape at 17-18.

[41] Comments of MFS Communications at 9.

[42] See, e.g., Comments of AT&T at 7, 9 ("[T]he current system of subsidies needs to be reformed and replaced by a single New Universal Service Fund ('NUSF') with competitively neutral funding.") ("[R]egulators must be able to easily identify the surcharge apart from the service provider's rates.").

[43] See Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket No. 96-98, FCC 96-182, at [[paragraph]] 3 (released Apr. 19, 1996).

[44] Id. at n.7.

[45] The 1996 Act requires the Joint Board to make its recommendations to the Commission regarding universal service within nine months of the date of enactment. 47 U.S.C. [[section]] 254(a). In addition, the Commission must complete the universal service proceeding within 15 months of the date of enactment. Id. [[section]] 254(b). Including the jurisdictional separations issue within an existing proceeding will help ensure that the Joint Board and the Commission meet these statutory deadlines.

[46] See, e.g., Ameritech at 21-22; Comments of AT&T at 4-7; Comments of MCI at 14-15; Comments of Sprint at 20; Comments of CompuServe at 6-7; Comments of ISA at 17-18.

[47] See Comments of Bell Atlantic at 11.

[48] Common Carrier Bureau, Preparation for Addressing Universal Service Issues: A Review of Current Interstate Support Mechanisms at 92 (Feb. 23, 1996). See also FCC Access Reform Task Force, Federal Perspectives on Access Charge Reform at 61 (Apr. 30, 1993) ("[T]he . . . CCL [charge] is an admitted subsidy from high volume interstate users to low-volume users."); Comments of ISA at 17-18.

[49] See Ameritech Operating Companies Petition for a Declaratory Ruling and Related Waivers to Establish a New Regulatory Model for the Ameritech Region, 1996 FCC LEXIS 775 at [[paragraph]] 109, FCC 96-58 (released Feb. 15, 1996) ("The recovery of non-traffic sensitive local loop costs through a usage charge on interexchange carriers . . . artificially suppress[es] demand for long-distance services.").

[50] Comments of MCI at 14-15 (emphasis added).

[51] See, e.g., Comments of AT&T at 7 ("Using TSLRIC as the economic standard, the Commission will find that the amount of current access revenues above TSLRIC is more than necessary to support universal service."); Comments of MCI at 15 ("The result will be a decline in the total subsidy needed, and over time, a reduction in the cost of local service."); Comments of MFS Communications at 12 ("Many of the subsidy programs [are not] targeted to supporting universal service, but rather, focus on preserving incumbent local exchange carrier revenues."); Comments of Netscape at 17-18 ("[T]he Commission may well find that the actual level of support needed is far lower than the sum total of the revenues collected today from IXCs and bundled into LEC access and local exchange rates.").

[52] See Comments of Pacific Telesis at 13; Comments of Southwestern Bell at 17.

[53] Comments of MFS Communications at 12.

[54] See, e.g., Comments of Ameritech at 24; Comments of Cincinnati Bell at 15; Comments of Southwestern Bell at 20 n.33; Comments of Citizens Utilities at 21; Comments of Frontier at 10; Comments of AT&T at 22; Comments of Association of Local Telecommunications Services at 18-19; Comments of Telecommunications Resellers Association at 14-15; Comments of International Communications Association at 5; Joint Comments of ITAA and EMA at 20-22.

[55] See Comments of Idaho Public Utilities Commission at 17-18.

[56] See Comments of New Mexico Attorney General at 5.

[57] See, e.g., Comments of Rural Telephone Coalition at 19; Southwestern Bell at 20 n.33.

[58] See, e.g., Comments of International Communications Association at 5; Comments of Association for Local Telecommunications Services at 18-19; Comments of Winstar Communications at 11; Comments of Citizens Utilities at 21.