[2] See, e.g., Air Touch Communications, Inc. Comments at pp. 10-13; BellSouth Comments at pp. 10-16; California Department of Consumer Affairs Comments at pg. 22; State of California and California Public Utilities Commission Comments at pg. 3; Compuserve Inc. Comments at pp. 4-6; Tele-Communications, Inc. Comments at pp. 2-4; US West Comments at pg. 3; and, Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission Comments at pg. 2.

[3] See, e.g., AT&T Comments at Appendix A; MCI Comments at pp. 3-4; and, Sprint Comments at pp. 4-9.

[4] BellSouth Comments at pp. 36-38 & Attachment 1; Bell Atlantic Comments at pp. 10-11; Pacific Telesis Comments at pp. 17-19; and, USTA Comments at pp. 17-18.

[5] Fred Williamson & Associates Comments at pp. 1-13; Frederick and Warinner Comments at pg. 2; and, GVNW Inc./Management Comments at pg. 13.

[6] Southwestern Bell Comments at pg. 2.

[7] Southwestern Bell Comments at pp. 3, 13-14.

[8] Southwestern Bell Comments at pp. 14-16.

[9] Southwestern Bell Comments at pp. 21-25. Arguably, Southwestern Bell's proposals are outside the scope of this proceeding. As the Commission observed in its Notice, access charge reform issues, like the issues raised by Southwestern Bell in this docket, will be considered in the access reform docket.

[10] Joint Explanatory Statement of the Committee of Conference at pg. 1.

[11] 47 U.S.C. [[section]]214(e).

[12] See, for example, NYNEX Comments at pg. 12, arguing inappropriately that only wireline carriers can provide core services supported by universal service funds.

[13] Alliance for Public Technology Comments at pp. 13-14; Apple Computer, Inc. at pg. 3; State of California and California Public Utilities Commission Comments at pp. 10-12; Citizens for a Sound Economy Comments at pp. 6-7; Council on Competitiveness Comments at pg. 4; and LDDS WorldCom Comments at pp. 4-7.

[14] MCI Comments at pg. 11.

[15] Winstar Comments at pp. 8-10.

[16] 47 U.S.C. [[section]]214(e)(1).

[17] NECA Comments at pp. 19-23.

[18] See, e.g., Fred Williamson & Associates Comments at pp. 18-19; Frederick & Warinner Comments at pg. 4; and, Southwestern Bell Telephone Comments at pg. 20.

[19] NECA Comments at pg. 13.

[20] Iowa Utilities Board Comments at pg. 6; and Sprint Comments at pp. 23-24.

[21] See, e.g., Bell Atlantic Comments at pg. 10; State of California and California Public Utilities Commission Comments at pg. 21; Oregon Public Utility Commission Comments at pp. 8-9; Time Warner Comments at pp. 23-25; and, USTA Comments at pg. 25.

[22] The Texas Public Utility Regulatory Act of 1995 (PURA) requires the Texas Commission to increase either the intrastate universal service fund or local service rates to "replace the reasonably projected change in revenues caused by" any reductions in the federal universal service fund. TEX. STAT. ANN. art. 1446c [[section]]3.608(b)(3) (Vernon 1995). Thus, the Texas PURA is blatently designed to guarantee the incumbent local provider's revenues.

[23] Ameritech Comments at pg. 24.

[24] America's Carriers Telecommunications Association Comments at pg. 13; AT&T Comments at pg. 22; Frontier Corporation Comments at pp. 9-10; LDDS WorldCom Comments at pp. 19-20; Illinois Commerce Commission Comments at pp. 10-11; Iowa Communications Network Comments at pg. 3; Maine Public Utilities Commission et al. Comments at pg. 3; Missouri Public Service Commission Comments at pg. 21; Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission Comments at pp. 24-25; and, Public Utility Commission of Ohio Comments at pg. 17.

[25] See, e.g., Notice at [[paragraph]] 16 for a list of the core capabilities that many commentors focused on.

[26] See, e.g., American Library Association Comments at Appendix I which presents a detailed summary of the costs of Internet access for libraries.

[27] See, e.g., American Library Association Comments.

[28] See, e.g., Ad Hoc Telecommunications User Committee Comments at pp. 4-5; America's Carriers Telecommunications Association Comments at pg. 6; and BellSouth Comments at pp. 23-24.

²⁹ ADSL (Asymmetric Digital Subscriber Line) is a technology that uses local loops to provide video or data services by transmitting digital information from the network to the user at rates from 1.5Mb to 6Mb and transmitting from the user to the network at 576Kb per second. HDSL (High-Bit-Rate Digital Subscriber Line) is a new technology that allows DS1 level transmission on two copper wire pairs or a half of a DS1 transmission capability on a single copper wire pair.

[30] 47 U.S.C. [[section]]251(c)(3).

[31] See, e.g., America's Carriers Telecommunications Association Comments at pg. 5; Ameritech Comments at pp. 6-8; American Foundation for the Blind Comments at pg. 4; BellSouth Comments at pp. 27-30; GTE Comments at pg. 2; GVNW Inc./Management at pg. 8; Illinois Commerce Commission Comments at pg. 3; Ohio Consumer Counsel Comments at pp. 11-12; and USTA Comments at pp. 13-14.

[32] Notice at [[paragraph]]16.

[33] Access to Communications for Education Coalition Comments at pg. 7; State of Alaska Comments at pp. 10-13; Alaska Library Association Comments at pg. 3; Alaska Public Utilities Commission Comments at pp. 1-6 (28.8Kb should be minimum speed); Alaska Telephone Association Comments at pp. 2-3 (ISDN); America's Carriers Telecommunications Association at pg. 6; American Association of Community Colleges and the Association of Community College Trustees Comments at pp. 10-12 (T1 access, Internet connectivity); American College of Nurse Practitioners Comments at p. 2 (ISDN); American Library Association Comments at pp. 4, 9-12; American Telemedicine Association Comments at pg. 7 (112Kb should be minimum); Ameritech Comments at pp. 14-15; Apple Computer Comments at p. 4 (bandwidths ranging from 128Kb to 45Mb should be made available); BellSouth Comments at pg. 19 (DS1 or 1.544Mb for schools); California Department of Consumer Affairs Comments at pg. 22; California Library Association Comments at pg. 3; Governor of Guam Comments at pp. 7, 10 (ISDN, access to NII); Idaho Public Utilities Commission Comments at pg. 11 (providers should contribute access to the Internet); Iowa Communications Network Comments at pg. 2; Iowa Utilities Board Comments at pg. 2; Kinkos, Inc. Comments at pp. 3-6 (community Internet access should be part of universal service); Lincoln Trail Libraries System Comments at pg. 1; Commonwealth of Massachusetts Board of Library Commissioners Comments at pg. 4; Merit Network, Inc. Comments at pp. 2-3 (ISDN, T1 access); Library of Michgan Comments at pg. 4 (ATM, broadband access); Michgan Library Association Comments at pg. 5 (ATM, broadband access); State of Missouri Comments at pp. 1-3 (Internet, teleconferencing capabilities); Mountaineer Doctor Television Telemedicine Program at West Virginia University (T-1 access, ISDN, ATM); National School Boards Association et al. Comments at pp. 13-14, Appendix I (unbundled broadband switching and transmission capable of delivering high-quality video); Nebraska Association of Hospitals and Health Systems Comments at pg. 1 (384Kb minimum, 1.544Mb more likely); New York State Board of Regents and new York Education Department Comments at pg. 11 (broadband on demand); North of Boston Library Exchange, Inc. Comments at pg. 1 (T-1, T-3 access); North Dakota Department of Health Comments at pg. 1 (ISDN); Oakland Unified School District Comments at pp. 10, 13 (T-1 access); Pacific Telesis Comments at pp. 3-6, 8-11 (ISDN provided to schools); U.S. Distance Learning Association Comments at pp. 9-12; US West Comments at pp. 21-23 (56/64Kb on request); and State of Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction Comments at pg. 1.

[34] 47 U.S.C. [[section]]706(a).

[35] Common Carrier Bureau, Preparing for Addressing Universal Service Issues: A Review of Current Interstate Support Mechanisms, at pp. 78-89 (Feb. 26, 1996) ("Universal Service Survey")

[36] 107 Stat. 1356, codified in 7 U.S.C. [[section]] 935 (1994).

[37] 7 U.S.C. [[section]]935(d)(3)(B). [emphasis added]

[38] 7 C.F.R. [[section]]1751.106 et seq.

[39] Ameritech Comments at pp. 15-16.

[40] Of course, incumbent carriers have begun deploying electronics in some loop plant. MFS does not seek to "turn back the clock." Rather, the incumbent should be required either to permit competing carriers to collocate wherever it installs loop electronics or it should provide high-speed access from those points to the host central offices. These details are more appropriately addressed in the Commission's interconnection docket, but the Commission and Joint Board should establish the general requirement in this proceeding.

[41] American Library Association Comments at pp. 13-19.

[42] Winstar Comments at pp. 1-2.