FCC Record, Volume 26, No. 22, Pages 17663 to 18414, Supplement (November 18, 2011) Page: 17,714
iii, 17663-18414 p. ; 28 cm.View a full description of this book.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
some price cap carriers meet the Act's definition of a rural telephone company and are eligible for IICLS,
while others do not and are eligible for IICMS. In addition, at least some price cap carriers currently
receive support from each of the other high-cost support mechanisms: LSS, IAS. and ICLS.207
131. In response to the US/ICC Transformation NPRM, several price cap carriers proposed,
as a transitional measure, to provide support to price cap carriers based on a simplified forward-looking
estimate of the costs of serving each wire center, without averaging such costs on a statewide basis as the
current non-rural support mechanism does.25 We sought further comment on this proposal in the August
3 Public Notice.29 We also specifically requested comment on the amount of support that should be
distributed under such a mechanism and the public interest obligations that should attach to recipients of
such support.'
(Continued from previous page)
"non-rural" under the 1996 Act, which were the Bell operating companies and other large incumbent telephone
companies. It allowed the more than 1,000 small carriers operating in rural areas to continue to receive support
temporarily based on their embedded costs under mechanisms that pre-dated the 1996 Act, with some modifications.
Then, in 2001, the Commission adopted a plan to maintain the existing high-cost loop support program, with some
modifications, for those rural carriers. See Rural Task Force Order, 16 FCC Red 1 1244; see also Federal-State
Joint Board on Universal Service, CC Docket No. 96-45. WC Docket No. 05-337, Order, 21 FCC Red 5514. 5515,
para. 2 (2006) (extending rules. which originally had been designed to last for five years, until such time that the
Commission "adopts new high-cost support rules for rural carriers"). Because some price cap carriers meet the
definition of a rural carrier under the 1996 Act, however, those companies still receive support today based on their
embedded costs in some study areas.
207 LSS is intended to support the cost of switching equipment; it provides support for study areas with 50,000 or
fewer access lines. See 47 C.F.R. 54.301, 36.125(f)(j); see also infra para. 253. IAS was created as part of the
May 2000 CALLS Order; it was designed to offset certain reductions in price cap carriers' interstate access charges
made in the same order. See CALLS Order, 15 FCC Red at 12974-.75, para. 30; see also USF/ICC Transformation
NPRM, 26 FCC Red at 4633-34, paras. 229-31. Only those carriers that were price cap carriers at the time of the
CALLS Order receive IAS, however, so the Commission has permitted those carriers that have transitioned from
rate-of-return regulation to price cap regulation subsequent to that order to continue to receive ICLS (which is
ordinarily available only to rate-of-return carriers) on a frozen basis--such support is known as frozen ICLS. See,
e.g., Windstream Petition for Conversion to Price Cap Regulation andtfor Limited Waiver Relief 23 FCC Red 5294,
5302-04, paras. 19-22 (2008).
2o See Windstream USF/ICC Transformation NPRM Comments at 9; Letter from Jennie B. Chandra, Windstream
Communications, Inc., to Marlene H. D)ortch, Secretary, FCC, WC Docket No. 10-90, et al. (filed June 30, 201 1);
Letter from Michael 1). Saperstein, Jr., Frontier Communications, to Marlene II. l)ortch, Secretary, FCC, WC
Docket No. 10-90, ct al. (filed July 26, 2011).
209 See Further Inquiry into Certain Issues in the Universal Service-Intercarrier C(ompensation Transformation
Proceeding, WC Docket Nos. 10-90, 07-135, 05-337, 03-109, CC I)ocket Nos. 01-92, 96-45, GN Docket No. 09-51,
Public Notice, 26 FCC Red 1112, at 10 (Wireline Comp. Bur. rel. Aug. 3, 2011) (August 3 Public Notice).
NASUCA generally supported the proposal to combine disparate support mechanisms, while noting that it cannot
evaluate the proposed targeting of support without knowing which carriers will receive more and which less. See
NASUCA August 3 PN Comments at 97-98. We do not think, however, that our decision on whether this interim
measure appropriately advances our goals depends on a specific analysis of how much money flows to particular
price cap carriers. The Rural Broadband Alliance objects to any use of the existing cost model to determine support
levels, arguing that the only currently appropriate means to provide support is on a rate-of-return basis. Rural
Broadband Alliance August 3 PN Comments, Attach. at 23-24. We find the Rural Broadband Alliance's
undeveloped and unsupported objections to be without merit.
210 August 3 Public Notice at 10. No commenter offered a proposal regarding the specific amount of support that
should be provided through such a mechanism nor did any specify the public interest obligations that should be
associated with such support.17714
Federal Communications Commission
FCC 11-161
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This book can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Book.
United States. Federal Communications Commission. FCC Record, Volume 26, No. 22, Pages 17663 to 18414, Supplement (November 18, 2011), book, 2011; Washington D.C.. (https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc154713/m1/62/: accessed April 23, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, UNT Digital Library, https://digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.