Fourteen representatives of National Telecom Coop Assn.’s (NTCA) ...

support, redefinition of universal service basis for assessment of contributions. They said, as mentioned in NTCA petition for reconsideration in MAG order, that FCC should suspend “identical support” rule. They said Commission couldn’t block competitive eligible telecom carriers’ (CETCs) use of ICLS funds and couldn’t comply with sufficiency requirements in Sec. 254(e) of 1996 Telecom Act, “so there is the potential for unfair competitive advantage.” Attendees said equal access to long distance carriers should be requirement to receiving universal service support. “Wireless carriers have an unfair advantage,” Valley Telephone Co-op CEO Judy Bruns said: “We serve the customers that no one else can serve… Costs for wireless carriers are different than for wireline.” NTCA said wireless consumers should be able to select long distance carrier for wireless calls, and FCC “should correct this inequity when it reviews equal access and the definition of universal service.” NTCA said existing revenue-based Universal Service Fund (USF) contribution methodology should be modified by eliminating wireless safe harbor percentage and expanding list of contributors to include all interstate service providers, such as cable, satellite and wireless broadband Internet access providers. They said they were considering extending USF to financing broadband services in rural areas. NTCA said it didn’t have “formal position to move in that direction.” However, gen. mgr. of Golden West Companies in S.D. said local carriers were considering that idea, providing they would receive financial support. Said NTCA: “In carrying out… broadband deployment objectives, policymakers must remain cognizant of what the rural carriers have already done and work to ensure that any legislative approach will actually result in additional deployment, will address the lack of consumer demand and will target the highest cost deployment challenges.” As for bankruptcy implications, NTCA said “it is imperative that the courts’ actions do not reward debtors for situations of their own making, while penalizing other segments of the industry, lest they face bankruptcy as well.”