Recent news reports suggesting that the FCC may levy a new “tax” on Internet service are sparking a wave of negative reaction from both free market-oriented and public interest groups. Free Press has had longstanding concerns. On Tuesday, the free-market Heartland Institute joined in. But it remains unclear at this point how much support there is at the FCC for contribution reform or a move to broaden the program to place a fee on retail Internet access service.

FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell will continue to push for USF contribution reform, though he still has an “open mind” about steps to take next, he said in an interview. McDowell has long championed taking on the contribution side of USF (CD Jan 9 p1). The FCC approved an order in October addressing the distribution side of USF and an order on the USF’s Lifeline program in January. In May, the FCC released a 182-page further notice of proposed rulemaking on contribution reform.

Comments filed on USF contribution reform show little agreement and point to the need for more discussion, Verizon and Verizon Wireless said in FCC reply comments. That conclusion was seconded by many companies and groups filing replies this week. Though many suggested short-term fixes, most agreed there is little consensus to move to a numbers-based or connections-based approach.

The FCC should broaden the range of companies paying into the USF so the fund will remain sustainable in the long term, said the NTCA, OPASTCO and Western Telecommunications Alliance in an FCC filing Monday. The groups filed in response to an FCC request for comment on its proposed rule on USF contribution reform (CD April 30 p4). The groups said they support assessing USF fees on text messaging, one-way VoIP calls, retail broadband Internet access and any enterprise communications service that utilizes a telecom component. The FCC should also adopt a “bright line” contributions rule that would determine service-specific designations, the groups said. The commission should continue to levy USF fees based on revenue, and should adopt contributions reform in stages, the groups said. “The Commission should first expeditiously resolve basic approaches and certain major issues that are ripe for action, and do so in the manner as discussed herein,” the groups said. “Following that, it should deal with more complex and less ripe issues at a later date in an ongoing further rulemaking and/or separate clarification orders as the consequences and unresolved issues of the initial reform become more apparent” (http://xrl.us/bnjnf2).

Of the dozens of comments filed this week in response to the FCC’s rulemaking on USF contribution reform, there was little agreement about whether to stick with a revenue-based system for assessing contribution fees, to move to a system that uses connections or numbers, or even whether to assess fees on broadband service. The only universal sentiment that might be teased out of the plethora of comments filed is that, as AT&T put it, the current system is “dysfunctional.” Carriers differed, but generally supported a modified revenue-based system, while VoIP providers preferred a connections-based system.

Special access reform and FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski’s initial push for a vote on an order rejecting AT&T and Windstream pricing flexibility petitions are expected to be key areas for questions July 10 when commissioners are scheduled to appear before the House Communications Subcommittee for an oversight hearing. Other likely topics include USF/intercarrier compensation reform, progress on a voluntary incentive auction of broadcast spectrum and other spectrum issues, the Verizon Wireless/cable AWS deals and privacy regulations, said government and industry officials.

The Ad Hoc Coalition of International Telecommunications Companies supports USTelecom’s call for long-term, comprehensive changes to the FCC USF contribution system, the group said in a letter to the agency Wednesday (http://xrl.us/bm4ha3). The group, which includes several domestic and foreign long distance service providers, called out the “Carrier’s Carrier Rule” as “one of several irrational and inefficient processes in need of immediate reform.

A numbers-based USF contribution methodology would be relatively easy to implement and monitor, and provide stability and predictability in contribution obligations, members of the Ad Hoc Telecommunications Users Committee told FCC Wireline Bureau officials Thursday (http://xrl.us/bm3252). A “pure” numbers methodology is “still the FCC’s best option,” and would allow business users to contribute their “fair share” while not unduly burdening consumers, said the group representing some major companies that buy telecom services. A methodology based on connections to the Internet or network would be “viable,” but only if obligations are applied fairly, they said. A revenues-based methodology “has inherent flaws” that already plague the existing funding mechanism, they said.

Carriers uniformly support the launch of an integrated national database to address duplicate and eligibility concerns for the Lifeline program, according to comments filed in response to a further notice of proposed rulemaking in the FCC’s Lifeline Order. But several carriers, as well as state commissions, were wary of a proposal to use USF dollars to encourage digital literacy, questioning whether the FCC had such authority. States also expressed concerns over privacy issues, the expected cost of the national database, and AT&T’s proposal to let ILECs opt out of the Lifeline program.

Rural telecom companies protested the FCC’s Universal Service Fund and intercarrier compensation revamp efforts, in testimony at a hearing Wednesday of the House Small Business Subcommittee on Healthcare. Witnesses also complained about high administrative costs to apply for federal grants and loans. Subcommittee leaders urged accelerated broadband buildout, particularly in rural areas. Chairman Renee Ellmers, R-N.C., urged passage of her bill (HR-2128) to stop the federal government from imposing penalties on health care providers who can’t make electronic prescriptions.