[1] As discussed in our original filing, Commenters agree with the NPRM's conclusion that the FCC need only consider each criteria, but it need not find that each service meets each of the four criteria to be eligible for universal service support. The FCC's finding is consistent with the plain language of the Act because the Act unambiguously states that in defining the services that are supported by Federal Universal support mechanisms, the Joint Board and the FCC "shall consider the extent to which such telecommunications services" meet the four criteria listed within. See Caminetti v. United States, 242 U.S. 485 (1916).

Moreover, the FCC's interpretation is consistent with the other related provisions in the statute. Where the statute was passed to ensure the provision of basic services to "all Americans," exclusion of homeless persons and migrant farmworkers from the provision of basic communications services would subvert the intent of the Act.

Finally, the legislative history further supports the FCC's interpretation. The conference report stated that the definition of universal service "should be based on a consideration of the four criteria set forth in the subsection." Conference Report at 131. In stating the FCC should base its determination on a "consideration of the four criteria," it is clear that Congress did not intend the FCC to prove that every service to be included with in universal service meets each of these criteria. Had Congress' intended each criteria to be met, it would have stated the FCC must find each service meets each of the criteria listed in Section 254.

[2] As stated in Commenters' original Comments, Commenters support the implementation of increased access to public payphones. This issue will be addressed in a separate proceeding as required under Section 276(b)(2) of the Telecommunications Act. See Notice, at [[paragraph]] 57.

[3] Telecommunications Act [[section]]254(c)(1)(A-D).

[4] As stated in Commenters' original Comments, the recommendations offered do not endorse any finite set of particular services. See Comments of the United States Catholic Conference et al. at 3, filed April 12, 1996. Rather, Commenters' goal is to suggest services that will allow homeless persons and migrant farmworkers to have access to the telecommunications network.

In the Commenters' original filing, increased internet access and long distance learning capabilities were also recommended as additional services to be supported by universal service funding mechanisms. See Comments of the United States Catholic Conference et al. at 11-13 and 19-20. Commenters continue to support these services and indorse the comments of the National School Board Association et al., at 5-6; Richard W. Riley, Secretary of Education, at 3 and 5; International Society for Technology in Education, at 7, and the Edgemont Neighborhood Coalition at 13, which address each of these issues.

Furthermore, United States Catholic Conference et al. agree with other Commenters that the Lifeline and Link-Up programs should not only be retained, but strengthened and expanded. See, supra, note 15. Commenters believe the Link-Up program should be expanded to provide assistance for more than one initiation per residence per year. Providing a means to allow migrant workers and other low income consumers more than one initiation per year will increase their access to telecommunications services and will enable poor and highly mobile groups to communicate with employers, medical and educational facilities, and family.

[5] Telecommunications Act [[section]] 254(c)(1)(A).

[6] Telecommunications Act [[section]] 254(c)(1)(B).

[7] Jorge Reina Schement, Beyond Universal Service, May 1994 at 2.

[8] Sidewire, Telecomworldwire, May 15, 1995.

[9] Mike Mills, Montgomery to Get Phone Message Service; Bell Atlantic's Residential 'T-Mail' Experiment is First in Country, Wash. Post, Mar. 17, 1995 at F-1.

[10] Tom Michele, Telephone Company keeps Stride With Progress, Rhinelander Daily News, Feb. 13, 1995, at A-1 (reporting approximately 48% of Rhinelander Telephone Companies 1994 voice mail growth was from residential customers).

[11] Telecommunications Act [[section]] 254(c)(1)(B-C).

[12] Andrew Pollack, Company News, NYT, Aug. 20, 1988 at Section 1, p.1.

[13] Telecommunications Act [[section]] 254(c)(1)(D).

[14] See Comments of the United States Catholic Conference et al., at 8-10 and 18 (access to voice mail for these groups has lead to increased opportunities for obtaining jobs and housing.) See also, discussion supra, at 6.

[15] See, Comments of NYNEX, at 16 (Lifeline and Link up should be expanded and/or restructured to carry out the purposes of Section 254), Bell Atlantic, at 6 (many low income consumers would be off the network without targeted programs such as Lifeline and Linkup and therefore these programs should be retained), BellSouth, at 13 (low income consumers can have access to telephone service through continuation of the Lifeline and Linkup programs), USTA, at 23 (these programs should be continued and expanded), US West, at 7 (US West has long supported and continues to support current Lifeline and Linkup programs) Southwestern Bell,at 6-7 (expanding Lifeline as well as Link up will be vital for those households that cannot pay the affordable price of universal service). We support these commenters' views to the extent they believe Linkup and Lifeline should be retained and/or expanded to ensure access by low income customers.

[16] See, Comments of the United States Catholic Conference, et al., at 8-13.

[17] Telecommunications Act [[section]] 254(c)(1)(A).

[18] Jorge Reina Schement, Beyond Universal Service, May 1994 at 2.

[19] Telecommunications Act [[section]] 254(c)(1)(B-C).

[20] Telecommunications Act [[section]] 254(c)(1)(D).

[21] Telecommunications Act [[section]] 254(c)(1)(A).

[22] The Eastern Stream Center on Residence and Training (ESCORT) has recently been awarded a contract to establish a national coordination center in which a national toll free number is available for migrant farmworkers. Calls which are received on the toll free line are automatically routed to the nearest source center which then refers the caller to the necessary social service provider. This service allows migrant farmworkers to communicate with service providers regardless of where the migrant farmworker is located using a single number. Interview with Phillip Kellerman, May 7, 1996.

[23] See Comments of the United States Catholic Conference et al., at 8-9.

[24] Telecommunications Act [[section]] 254(c)(1)(B).

[25] According to David Rogers of BellSouth Telecommunications and as reported in Bellsouth ready To Offer Toll-Free 888 Numbers, PR Newswire, Feb. 28, 1996 at Financial News.

[26] Elizabeth Douglas, Number CRUNCH High Demand Forces Rationing of Toll-Free Phone Lines, San Diego Union-Tribune, June 25, 1995 at I-1.

[27] Toll Free Service Access Code, 10 FCC Rcd. 13692, Notice of Proposed Rule Making, CC Dkt. No. 95-155, (adopted and released January 25, 1996). (The FCC pointed out that toll free telephone numbers were increasingly being used to meet consumers' personal needs. One example cited was that parents can give their toll free number to a child away at college, enabling that child to call home free of charge at any time. Due to pace at which these numbers are being used by consumers, the danger existed that 800 toll free numbers could be depleted before an additional toll free code could be introduced.)

[28] Telecommunications Act [[section]] 254(c)(1)(C).