Martin Sticks to Guns on Numbers-Based USF Plan
FCC Chmn. Martin made it clear he still backs a numbers-based approach to reforming the way companies contribute to the Universal Service Fund (USF), despite concerns about that method’s effect on low-volume telephone users. User groups have said a phone number- based approach would hike USF fees carriers pass on to customers.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
At a Thurs. Practising Law Institute telecom conference, Martin acknowledged concerns about low-volume users but said nearly any change from today’ system of basing contributions on a percentage of revenue will have some negative impact on low volume users. “I continue to think this is the way to fix contributions,” he said in a Q-&-A with telecom attorneys. Martin offered several reasons for endorsing a numbers plan: (1) The FCC has jurisdiction over telephone numbers. (2) Using numbers to set USF contributions is technology neutral. (3) It’s a more stable way to collect contributions.
On another issue, Martin said “the Commission has to grapple with the problem of universal service [payments for] multiple providers” in rural areas. “Trying to subsidize multiple providers [is] economically inefficient and can be costly,” he said, referring to entry into rural markets by wireless competitors also being subsidized through the USF.
Among other Martin comments: (1) “I've always thought state regulators should be given more [authority over] numbering issues” because they are closer to those issues. (2) The Commission could run better if Sunshine Act curbs were eased to give commissioners “some ability to meet and have frank dialogue.” Martin joins a growing chorus for reforming the Sunshine Act.
In response to media questioning, Martin said he doesn’t think the FCC asked for an unusually large amount of documents in its review of the Adelphia deal (CD Dec 7 p1). “I cut back the document request from what the staff wanted to ask,” he said. What remained wasn’t “out of line,” he said.
FCC Wireline Bureau Chief Thomas Navin said in a later presentation that contributions methodology is among the new year’s top action items. “The chairman has been fairly vocal” in his support for numbers, since it’s “administrable and technologically neutral,” Navin said: “Any service using telephone numbers would contribute.”
Navin indicated phantom traffic might be gaining steam as an issue at the FCC: “I've been asked by a lot of people if the Commission is going to resolve phantom traffic [before] resolving intercarrier compensation. The answer is, I don’t know,” Navin said. The bureau has been meeting with involved parties and has developed materials to “put the Commission in a position to act if it chooses to,” he said. Whatever the outcome on that side issue, “in 2006 intercarrier compensation is going to be paramount,” he said.
“On the horizon for 2006” is action on prepaid calling cards, based on a Feb. notice of proposed rulemaking and a May AT&T petition, he said. The issue stems from a Feb. FCC decision requiring AT&T to pay universal service contributions and intrastate access charges on revenue from its enhanced prepaid calling card service. At that time, the FCC began an NPRM to look at regulatory treatment of other prepaid calling cards, including one AT&T introduced last year.
NARUC’s Ramsay Urges FCC Scrutiny of Roaming
NARUC Gen. Counsel Brad Ramsay said his group has no position on the FCC’s roaming proceeding, but he believes the issue deserves close attention. “I personally want to watch this closely,” Ramsay said. “I saw a presentation back in September where one carrier said they were charged 8 times by the national carrier what that national carrier charged its affiliate and twice as much as that national carrier charged an MVNO… Maybe there’s something there that justifies that differential treatment, but it’s an issue that needs to be examined.”
In an Aug. notice of proposed rulemaking, the FCC asked whether to modify, expand or erase CMRS roaming requirements. State commissions often don’t regulate wireless service and have steered clear of taking a position. Despite industry’s suspicions, Ramsay said state regulators aren’t anxious to add wireless service to the list of things they regulate.
Barry Ohlson, wireless advisor to Comr. Adelstein, didn’t indicate where the FCC is headed on the roaming proceeding. But Ohlson said the proceeding should help the Commission get a better fix on roaming amid wireless carrier consolidation. “We want to make sure that we have a system in place that allows these competitors to develop, to make sure that these roaming arrangements are appropriate,” he said. “The more details the better on this one.”
Meanwhile, much discussion by the PLI wireless panel was on last season’s hurricanes, especially Katrina and Rita.
CTIA Vp-Policy Carolyn Brandon said 2 post-storm issues loom for wireless carriers - how to restore commercial power quickly and how to restore the underlying wireline network for transporting wireless calls. “We cannot look at this issue in a vacuum,” Brandon said. “It’s not just wireline-wireless. It’s wireline. It’s the cable. It’s satellite. And it also means that all aspects of the public sector need to work with the private sector.”
Ramsay praised wireless carriers’ efforts to get systems back in operation quickly, calling them “model corporate citizens,” but said the storms showed industry and govt. need better understanding of how to address a catastrophic failure when an entire communications system crashes. “Everybody tests tower outages, everybody tests a line going down,” Ramsay said. “You usually don’t test a whole area, all of the infrastructure in an area, wiped.”