US:PA-4: RE: Summary of Universal Service Task Force Report
RE: Summary of Universal Service Task Force Report
Farley, Dave (dave.farley@city.pittsburgh.pa.us)
Mon, 6 Oct 1997 15:19:27 -0400
-----Original Message-----
>From: Bob Carlitz [SMTP:bob@hamlet.phyast.pitt.edu]
>Sent: Thursday, October 02, 1997 7:23 PM
>To: Farley, Dave
>Cc: bob@hamlet.phyast.pitt.edu
>Subject: Re: Summary of Universal Service Task Force Report
>
>> What's the Task Force's view (or views) on the matter of consortia for
>> aggregating demand, e.g.? Can libraries and schools enter into formal
>> partnerships with municipalities, counties, community networks, etc. and
>> have those entities be eligible for discounts within expanded
>
> They seem to be ambivalent. If you read the Task
> Force report (which is online in the Resource Library),
> they point out that the limitations on aggregation
> conflict with the state's strategy as expressed through
> Link-to-Learn.
[Farley, David] I understand that. Why not
take some inspiration from Ohio, California, and Wisconsin about these
matters? They've all grappled more or less successfully with
heterogeneity in aggregating demand.
> At the same time they recommend
> only that the state follow the federal guidelines
> in every detail.
[Farley, David] Why? Don't they value the
broader community aspect of what we're talking about?
> This means that community groups
> and local government would be ineligible and consortia
> including these groups could not negotiate prices
> which would qualify as pre-discount prices.
[Farley, David]
That would be a terrible waste. The PUC has an an opportunity, here,
to make something creative and forward-looking happen in Pennsylvania,
and not merely settle for the minimum on behalf of the citizens.
> HOWEVER, I learned something yesterday that is very
> interesting. I asked what qualifies as interstate
> and what qualifies as intrastate. The answer was
> that it depends solely upon who is selling you the
> service.
[Farley, David] That's right.
> Thus most Internet-related expenses qualify
> as intrastate.
[Farley, David] Also true.
> This means that the PUC has complete
> leeway in setting discount schedules and eligibility
> on such items.
[Farley, David] Yes, they do. You can see
glimmers of recognition similar to this in the California PUC ruling
that includes community networks,e.g., and in the filing before the
Wisconsin PUC.
> Previously I had thought that it
> would be imossible to account for intrastate vs.
> interstate traffic, forcing the state PUCs simply
> to endorse the FCC's criteria. But now I htink
> there is more leeway here.
[Farley, David] I am fairly sure
that there is, indeed, much more leeway, or those other states
wouldn't have walked so far down the road to incenting the development
of consortia.
>> definitions? There's already some case law with respect to the FCC's
>> rights in terms of restricting the states from interpreting portions of
> Notably the local interconnect ruling, which was
> successfully challenged on these grounds. Do you
> know where PA's local interconnect ruling stands?
[Farley, David] No, but I'd hope we could all find out from someone
at the state.
> I think that local interconnection issues will end
> up being far more important than Universal Service
> in determining who gets what and for what price.
>
> Bob Carlitz
[Farley, David]
Quite possibly.
>> the Telecom Act. Is this likely to be one of those areas? If so, is
>> Pennsylvania prepared to address the matter?
[Farley, David] We're going to be dealing with some these matters on
the various working groups that were formed out of the recent
Governor's Office/Pitt meeting on telecommunications infrastructure.
There's a late November deadline for getting recommendations to Larry
Olson, et al. It is very clear to me that the citizens of the
Commonwealth would benefit in many ways from including municipal and
county governments along with schools, libraries, hospitals, and state
government entities in a very large public consortium. The
distributive power of the new technology will only be as effective as
it is ubiquitous. There are many, good reasons -- public safety,
education, economic development, emergency communications, public
health, and so forth -- for the Pennsylvania PUC to move boldly in
that direction.
Regards,
Dave Farley
>> Dave Farley