[2] For example, the state public service commissions and consumer advocates filing in this proceeding all supported creation of a universal service fund that was nondiscriminatory and competitively neutral. See e.g., Florida PSC at 3; NASUCA at 22-23.

[3] Rural Telephone Coalition ("RTC") at 4-5. RTC claims in a footnote that the reason that potential entrants have not sought to serve rural areas is that these entrants "calculate correctly" that they can maximize their return on investment by concentrating on lower cost, higher volume customers. The major competitive LECs, it argues, have publicly acknowledged that their focus is on major urban markets. Id. at n.10. This argument ignores the fact that numerous smaller cable companies, particularly those in rural areas, have the desire and ability to provide telecommunications services in rural areas and have taken significant steps to do so.

[4] Contrary to the suggestion of a number of rural telephone companies, Congress did not intend to (nor did it) mandate a "single wire" scenario in rural LEC service territories. See, e.g., Evans Telephone Company et al. at 11. In fact, the 1996 Act contemplates competitive entry in rural markets. See 47 U.S.C. [[section]][[section]] 253(f), 214(e)(2). The very provisions cited by these rural telephone companies not only contemplate competitive entry, but leave the States the discretion to designate a second carrier as eligible to receive universal service support in a rural telephone company's service area and to decide the extent of the obligations that should be imposed on the new entrant. See 47 U.S.C. [[section]][[section]] 253(f), 214(e)(2); see also 47 U.S.C. [[section]]251(f)(10(c) (upon request of a cable operator, no deferral of interconnection obligations imposed on a rural telephone company in areas in which the rural telephone company begins providing video programming after February 8, 1996.)

[5] Proposals for competitive bidding to set the levels of required subsidies which NCTA generally supported in its comments are rejected by the RTC (at 17); but its objections should be dismissed because of the benefits such a procedure could bring to consumers in those areas, as discussed in the NCTA comments.

[6] NPRM at [[paragraph]] 8.

[7] See e.g., Ameritech at 8, n.14; USTA at 5; Georgia PSC at 6.

[8] We expressed concern about including access to E-911 services (as opposed to 911) among the core services, a position with which other commenters agree. See e.g., NYNEX at 11 note 20.

[9] See e.g., Bell Atlantic at 7 (adds access to IXCs, white pages listing); US West at 5-7 (access to directory assistance, IXCs, TRS); BellSouth at 5-6 (white pages listing); Southwestern Bell at 8 (white pages, directory assistance, single party business line); NYNEX at 11-13 (directory listing, access to IXCs, TRS).

[10] A number of state commissions and consumer counsels made this suggestion. See also Initial Comments of the American Association of Retired Persons, Consumer Federation of America, and Consumer's Union ("AARP/CFA/CU") at 9-10.

[11] See Alaska PUC at ii (urging, inter alia, addition of local dialing access to Internet, line quality for fax, access to optional digital services such as switched 56 and ISDN).

[12] See Maine PUC, et al. at 16.

[13] See Bell Atlantic at 7.

[14] See e.g., Rural Telephone Coalition at 8; Southwestern Bell at 8; USTA at 13.

[15] Rural Telephone Coalition at 16-17; BellSouth at Attachment (NERA Report); Southwestern Bell at 14-17.

[16] NYNEX at 10; US West at 8.

[17] Pacific Telesis at 31. In a recognition of a major deficiency many found with its model, Pacific Telesis now claims it no longer requires the use of proprietary data.

[18] Ameritech at 12.

[19] Southwestern Bell Telephone Company at 14-17.

[20] See BellSouth Corporation, BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. at Attachment (NERA Report) at 36-40.

[21] Rural Telephone Coalition at 16-17 ("A proxy method that would limit support to some preconceived cost level based on a formula that deviates from what is needed¼is unlawful.")

[22] Pacific Telesis at 18.

[23] See Amendment of Part 36 of the Commission's Rules and Establishment of a Joint Board, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Notice of Inquiry, FCC 95-282, released July 13, 1995, at [[paragraph]]55.

[24] See Bell Atlantic at 9 citing Section 254(b)(3) (emphasis added).

[25] US West, Inc. at 8-11.

[26] Id. at Appendix A, p.1.

[27] NASUCA at 19-21.

[28] Id. at 20.

[29] Id. at 20-21.

[30] NYNEX at 9.

[31] See NCTA at 13; See also Time Warner at 11-12 (only LECs subject to rate of return regulation should be eligible to draw funds for individual high-cost areas).

[32] Southwestern Bell at 13-14.

[33] National Exchange Carrier Association at 10.

[34] See e.g., BellSouth at 10; Southwestern Bell at 23; US West at 11.

[35] In fact, in changing from SFAS 71 to SFAS 101 accounting most RBOCs have explicitly indicated to their shareholders (in their respective 10-K filings) that the write-off is occurring because, with the advent of competition, there can be no assurance of recovery.

[36] See e.g., Bell Atlantic at 14; AARP/CFA/CU at 22; Office of Communication of the United Church of Christ, et al. at 9-10.

[37] See e.g., AT&T at 13 note 16; Sprint at 21; CompTel at 18.

[38] AARP/CFA/CU at 21.

[39] Monitoring Report, CC Docket No. 87-339, Federal-State Joint Board State in CC Docket 80-286 (May 1995) at 48.

[40] Continental Cablevision at 6-7 (emphasis in original)

[41] See e.g., Tele-Communications, Inc. at 17-23; Continental Cablevision, Inc. at 5-12.

[42] See e.g., Comments of the American Federation of Teachers; Comments of The Access to Communications for Education [ACE] Coalition; Joint Comments of National School Boards Association, American Library Association et al.; Comments of the American Telemedicine Association.

[43] See Comments of Richard W. Riley, Secretary of Education at 2; Statement of Richard W. Riley, U.S. Secretary of Education before the Federal Communications Commission, April 12, 1996 at 1("[E]very effort should be made to give our nation's schools and libraries free access to the new telecommunications world that is now emerging or access at substantially discounted rates").

[44] Idaho Public Utilities Commission at 10-11.

[45] Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission at 15.

[46] NYNEX at 18-20.

[47] Pacific Telesis at 12.

[48] Time Warner at 16-17.

[49] Teleport at 18-19.

[50] Florida Cable Telecommunications Association at 13-18.

[51] See News Release, "Commission Announces Intention to Form Telemedicine Advisory Committee to Assist Implementation of the Telecommunications Act," April 12, 1996.

[52] Pacific Telesis at 12.

[53] Florida Cable Telecommunications Association at 13-18.

[54] Time Warner at 16.

[55] Id.

[56] Teleport at 18.

[57] Id.

[58] Secretary Richard W. Riley at 1.

[59] Continental Cablevision at 6-7.

[60] The 1996 Act does not require the Joint Board to recommend, nor the Commission to adopt, designation of additional services for support by a date certain.

[61] NYNEX observes that the Commission "should not include revenues from transactions involving the content component for cable television services" in determining each provider's share of the universal service payment, suggesting that revenues from the provision of the "transmission" element of cable service are to be included in calculating a provider's USF contribution. NYNEX at 24, n. 39 (emphasis added). See also USTA at 24. But USF contributions can only be assessed against carriers providing "telecommunications." And, as the structure and definitions of the Communications Act, both prior to and after enactment of the 1996 Act, make clear, "cable service" (including both transmission and content components) is separate and distinct from common carrier telecommunications service. 47 U.S.C. [[section]]  153(44) (a "telecommunications carrier" shall be treated as a common carrier to the extent it is engaged in providing telecommunications services). Cable systems are insulated from common carrier regulation by reason of providing cable service. Compare the definition of "telecommunications carrier" in Section 3 (a)(2) of 1996 Act with 47 U.S.C. [[section]]541 (c) (insulating cable service from common carrier regulation). Significantly, the 1996 Act retained and expanded the definition of "cable service" from Title VI, even as it added new definitions for "telecommunications service" and "telecommunications."

[62] See e.g., Comments of BellSouth at 15; Comments of Southwestern Bell at 18; NYNEX at 23; US West at 17; and USTA at 1.

[63] 47 U.S.C. [[section]]254 (b)(4).