The Progress & Freedom Foundation (PFF) released a study on the u...

but said “both regulators and legislators would be well-advised to take a step back and reconsider what the universal service fund is really supposed to pay for before determining which mechanisms should be employed.” One proposed solution is “phone stamps,” a voucher program to offset costs in rural areas for low income people. At a PFF panel discussion on Fri., several speakers discounted that idea. Nanette Thompson, Alaska PUC Comr., said such a “means-based” approach isn’t realistic because the expense for providers is in building the network. “It’s not a question of affordability of service, but of the cost to provide the service,” she said. Other ideas included an offset similar to the earned income tax credit and using a “reverse auction” as a distribution method. The paper also suggested abandoning charges on interstate services with an across-the-board surcharge on all communications service revenue. Thompson, who’s also the state chmn. on the joint federal-state board on USF, said the state side of the board favors that approach. Matt Brill, aide to FCC Comr. Abernathy, the federal chmn. of the joint board, said such an approach would likely require legislation. John Rose, OPASTCO pres., said reform of USF should focus on 4 issues: (1) The public interest standard. (2) An increase in accountability. (3) Distribution based on actually costs. (4) A broader base of support to draw from. John Stanton, Western Wireless chmn., said wireless companies should be included in the distribution of USF funds since that technology is well suited for rural areas and since it’s becoming the only line for many consumers. He said while wireless company contributions make up 30% of the USF, wireless companies receive only 2% of the distributions.