House Commerce Committee ranking Democrat John Dingell (Mich.) called on FCC to investigate AT&T’s recent increase in Universal Service Fund (USF) line-item fee for residential customers, but Chmn. Tauzin (R-La.) is considering congressional action rather than waiting for Commission response. Dingell urged FCC Chmn. Powell in letter dated Jan. 7 specifically to “open the books and records” of AT&T while raising questions whether long distance companies in general were using fee to “gouge” customers. Committee spokesman Ken Johnson said Tauzin “is giving serious consideration to holding congressional hearings” on AT&T decision to raise fees: “He will make a final decision after consulting with [Telecom Subcommittee] Chairman Upton [R- Mich.], but clearly we are very concerned about the impact the fee hike would have on consumers nationwide.”
As it warned in ex parte filing Dec. 13, AT&T raised monthly universal service line-item fee for residential customers to 11.5% starting first of year, from 9.9%. AT&T had asked Commission for permission to change formula used to determine contributions to Universal Service Fund (USF) because falling revenue had skewed it. It said problem was that FCC determined how much a company should contribute to USF using revenue from 6 months ago. When company’s revenue is falling, as AT&T’s is, using that contribution factor on lower current revenue results in larger per-customer fee, company said. It had asked for permission to base its contribution factor on projected revenue rather than 6-month- old revenue and had offered to true up contributions if there were shortfall once actual revenue total was available.
FCC approved proposal Tues. to explore whether and how to reform way agency assesses carrier contributions to Universal Service Fund (USF) and how carriers can recover such costs from customers. Notice of proposed rulemaking unanimously approved by Commission solicits feedback on continuing to require carriers to contribute to USF based on percentage of collected revenue or whether agency should move toward flat-fee alternative, such as per-line charge. Companies that have recovered universal service contributions from customers haven’t historically been held by FCC to particular cost recovery method, with agency instead generally requiring contributors not to shift more than “equitable” amount of contributions to any customer or group of customers. FCC said changes under examination are response to industry trends, including new entrants such as RBOCs into long distance market because contributions now are based on historical, not current, interstate revenue.
Federal court decision last week on ILEC access charges has ramifications for other proceedings such as FCC’s attempts to overhaul access charge and universal service regimes for rural telcos, industry observers said Mon. Fifth U.S. Appeals Court, New Orleans, ruled May 3 that ILECs couldn’t recover their Universal Service Fund (USF) contributions through access charges levied on long distance companies. Court, which remanded FCC regulations for 2nd time on this issue, said such action constituted implicit subsidy, which is barred by Telecom Act. At issue are contributions that all carriers must make to USF. Long distance companies, for example, recover those contributions directly from their customers. FCC in 1997 ordered ILECs to recover their costs from long distance companies as part of access charges. Fifth Circuit remanded that rule in 1999 because of implicit subsidy problem. Commission rewrote rule and said ILECs no longer were required to recover costs from access charges but were permitted to do so if they wished. FCC said it interpreted court’s decision to mean it couldn’t require contributions through access charges but instead had to give ILECs choice of how they recovered contributions. In latest ruling, court said FCC interpretation was wrong. It said ILECs couldn’t recover universal service contributions from access charges, period: “The distinction the agency draws between ‘require’ and ‘permit’ is one without a difference.” Court said its original ruling “turned on the recovery method per se, not whether the Commission permitted or mandated it.” AT&T Vp Joel Lubin said he was cheered by strong language court used in defining access charge recovery as implicit subsidy. Lubin said court’s ruling could affect decision FCC is expected to make Thurs. on rural universal service. At very least, proposals under study by FCC, such as one proposed by Multi-Assn. Group, should be revised to eliminate implicit USF subsidies in access charges, he said. AT&T and several other carriers proposed such action to FCC last month, Lubin said, so court’s ruling was pleasant coincidence. Appeals Court ruling doesn’t have as much effect on large price-cap-regulated ILECs because FCC directed them last year to stop recovering USF contributions through access charges. Action was taken as part of Commission’s adoption of CALLS proposal. Lubin said court’s strong statements barring implicit subsidies in access charges applied to other industry practices as well. Among them, he said, is practice of pooling carrier common line (CCL) charges for rural carriers. Because National Exchange Carrier Assn. (NECA) pools those charges, by nature they are not cost-based, he said. Pooling access charges discourages competition, he said. Competitors such as Western Wireless can’t share in that subsidy because it’s “buried in the pool,” he said. Judge Emilio Garza wrote decision. Also on panel were Judges Eugene Davis and Donald Pogue. Pogue concurred because he disagreed with 1999 decision, saying it might have gone too far