120 likes | 240 Views
Universal Service Fund High Cost Reform 2007. Billy Jack Gregg Director, West Virginia Consumer Advocate NARUC New York City July 16, 2007. High Cost Reform. Back to Basics What Does the Statute Say ?. High Cost Reform. Guiding Principles, Sec. 254(b):
E N D
Universal Service FundHigh Cost Reform2007 Billy Jack Gregg Director, West Virginia Consumer Advocate NARUC New York City July 16, 2007
High Cost Reform Back to Basics What Does the Statute Say?
High Cost Reform Guiding Principles, Sec. 254(b): ●Quality services at just, reasonable and affordable rates ●Reasonably comparable services for rural customers at reasonably comparable rates ●Access to advanced services in all regions of the Nation
High Cost Reform Supported Services, Sec. 254(c): ●An evolving level of telecommunications services ●Take into account advances in telecommunications and information technologies and services
High Cost Reform What services? Currently, only POTS service is supported
High Cost Reform What do customers really want? • Reliable voice service in their homes and businesses • Data service in their homes and businesses • Mobility
High Cost Reform Do current High Cost Support Mechanisms address these needs? NO!
High Cost Reform Many rural areas lack access to: • Mobility • Broadband
High Cost Reform Current High Cost Support Mechanisms For Rural Carriers • High Cost Loop Support • Local Switching Support • Interstate Common Line Support For Non-Rural Carriers • Interstate Access Support • High Cost Model Support
High Cost Reform Are any of the current High Cost Support Mechanisms mandated in the statute? NO!
High Cost Reform Should rethink approach to High Cost Support ●Need fund that addresses build out of broadband infrastructure in unserved areas ●Need fund that addresses build out of mobility infrastructure in unserved areas ●Need fund that addresses affordability and comparability of rates in high cost areas
High Cost Reform • Do all supported services have to be supported in the same way? • Is “competitive neutrality” an impediment to reform?