Big Telcos Reject Mo. USF Expansion
Big telecom companies opposed proposals to expand Missouri USF support to broadband-only and high-cost voice services. In comments Monday in docket TW-2017-0078, Verizon said law prohibits the Public Service Commission from using state USF to support broadband. The statute says…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Communications Daily is required reading for senior executives at top telecom corporations, law firms, lobbying organizations, associations and government agencies (including the FCC). Join them today!
it’s only for local voice service, and broadband isn’t a telecom service subject to state jurisdiction, Verizon said. Competition is keeping voice service affordable, it said: “There is no justification for imposing higher MoUSF fees on Missourians in order to create a high cost fund when the competitive market is operating as it should.” CenturyLink, Level 3 and the Missouri Cable Telecommunications Association separately opposed both proposals in other comments. AT&T opposed high-cost voice support, commenting that “technology has evolved past the point where supporting traditional voice service makes sense.” The carrier didn’t oppose a state broadband fund, but suggested conditions: “To the extent Missouri seeks to make state-based USF support similarly available for broadband service, the state USF statutory scheme will likely need to be amended to provide the Commission with necessary jurisdiction, recognizing that the FCC has reiterated that broadband internet access is an interstate service.” Participation in the state program should be voluntary and the fund shouldn’t duplicate existing broadband networks or federal support from the FCC Connect America Fund, AT&T said. FairPoint and a group of small Missouri phone companies supported the broadband fund and high-cost voice support. "The FCC has required ETCs [eligible telecom carriers] receiving [federal USF] high-cost support to spend even more money on their networks, while at the same time, the FCC is providing less financial support through FUSF and ICC [intercarrier compensation] to accomplish that mandate,” the small telcos commented: That “created a real need for states like Missouri to consider establishing their own high-cost funds to assist ETCs in continuing to provide state-of-the-art telecommunications services, including Broadband, in rural areas where the cost of doing so is significantly higher than more populous, urban areas.” Most commenters disagreed or didn’t comment on eliminating the state USF, but AT&T said it wouldn’t be opposed if that’s what the PSC wants.