INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND
Today’s Contribution System
15 (1999) (Universal Service Eighth Report and Order) (establishing a single contribution obligation for all universal service support mechanisms); Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service et al., CC Docket No. The Commission's rules penalize contributors who do not comply with their obligations to contribute to general public services.
Industry Developments and Contribution Reform Efforts
GOALS OF CONTRIBUTION METHODOLOGY REFORM
In light of these problems, we propose that one goal of reform should be to make compliance and administration of the contribution system more efficient (1) by developing rules that work clearly within the evolving market structure and (2) by closing loopholes. Therefore, we propose that a second objective for reform should be to ensure fairness and competitive neutrality in the contribution system.
WHO SHOULD CONTRIBUTE TO UNIVERSAL SERVICE
Therefore, we begin by seeking comment on how to interpret the scope of the Commission's permissive authority under section 254(d). 98 Below, we seek comment on how to define the terms "connections" and "numbers" for contribution purposes should the Commission adopt an alternative contribution methodology.
Statutory Authority to Require Contributions
However, for such integrated services, the service provider still 'provides' telecommunications as part of the 'offer'. We generally solicit comment on whether the public interest would be served, and to what extent exercising our permissive authority would achieve one or more of the goals set forth above: efficiency, fairness, and sustainability.
Determining Contribution Obligations on a Case-by-Case Basis with Respect to
- Enterprise Communications Services Providers
- Text Messaging Providers
- One-way VoIP Service Providers
- Broadband Internet Access Service Providers
- Listing of Services Subject to Universal Service Contribution Assessment
We seek comment on whether the Commission should exercise its permissive authority under section 254(d) to include “one-way” providers in the contribution base. If we rate broadband internet access services, how would that affect the size of the contribution base.
Determining Contribution Obligations Through a Broader Definitional Approach
HOW CONTRIBUTIONS SHOULD BE ASSESSED
In this section of the notice, we seek comments on how to simplify our contribution system in accordance with the Act and our proposed goals for reform. We seek comments on how each option would contribute to our proposed goals and ask about potential implementation issues associated with specific methodologies.
Reforming the Current Revenues-Based System
Apportioning Revenues from Bundled Services
We also seek comment on whether such a rule would create competitive differences between providers that offer stand-alone offerings of assessable services and those that sell only bundled services in the marketplace. We are seeking comments on how the rule will affect the overall contribution base, as well as the individual burden for consumers.
Contributions for Services with an Interstate Telecommunications Component
We also seek comment on what steps should be taken to implement the above proposal or alternative proposals for allocating revenue from bundled service offerings for USF contribution purposes. We also seek comment on what steps should be taken to implement the above proposal or alternative proposals for allocating information services revenue for USF grant purposes.
Allocating Revenues Between Inter- and Intrastate Jurisdictions
As shown in Chart 4 below and in Appendix B, the 245 VoIP providers submitted traffic studies showing interstate/international revenues ranging from zero to 59.9 percent. Overall, the average percentage for VoIP traffic studies is 22.1 percent interstate/international, with the average study reporting 14.7 percent interstate/international.
Contribution Obligations of Wholesalers and Their Customers
In particular, we are seeking comment here on whether a value-added system similar in concept to the value-added revenue proposal for a revenue-based system listed above might be desirable for connections, and if so, how such a system would work. In this section, we seek comment on alternatives to the value-added approach that would advance our proposed goals of improving the Fund's administrative efficiency, equity, and sustainability.
Reporting Prepaid Calling Card Revenues
First, we seek comment on the change to the definition of prepaid calling cards, as discussed below. We also welcome comments on alternative methods prepaid calling card providers should use to report prepaid calling card service revenue.
International Telecommunications Providers
Alternatively, if we maintain an exemption for international providers only, we request comment on whether modifying the LIRE and the contribution obligations of LIRE-qualifying contributors may be appropriate. We also request comment on whether we should set the LIRE qualifying factor based on a formula rather than a fixed percentage.
Reforming the De Minimis Exemption
We seek comment on whether we should amend the Commission's de minimis rules in an effort to reduce administrative burdens. Such a rule would set the de minimis threshold based on a telecommunications provider's assessable income rather than what it would have contributed.
Legal Authority
We also seek comment on whether, if we were to introduce a connection-based system, we should adopt an exception similar to LIRE under the current revenue-based system for connections that are primarily international in nature,380 and, if so, how to make such an exception .
Defining “Connections”
We request comment on the definition of an assessable connection that best meets our proposed objectives of promoting the efficiency, fairness, and sustainability of the Fund, as well as other objectives identified by commenters. Define “End User”. We also request comment on whether a definition of connection should be limited to connections offered to “end users.” In previous years the Commission has looked for it.
Trends in Connections
The data set on FCC Form 477 provides some information that may be useful in predicting the number of connections. Assuming continued growth in mobile subscriptions, interconnected VoIP and broadband connections, the total number of connections could grow to approximately 800 million connections under the FCC Form 477 connection categories by 2015.
Assessment and Use of Speed or Capacity Tiers
We seek comment on whether a connection-based system that provides special treatment for a myriad of benefits will meet our proposed goal of ensuring. Previously, the Commission sought comment on defining a connection as either a residential/single-line business or a multi-line business connection based on whether.
Policy Arguments Related to Connections-Based Assessment
For example, should we consider how much "bursty" bandwidth would be rated under a link-based system. We also seek comment on the estimation of revenues related to information services.435 In light of these possible approaches, is this potential advantage of a linkage-based methodology still relevant.
Implementation
In particular, we seek comments on the specific changes necessary to enable USAC to administer the fund under a linkage-based system. We are seeking comment on contributors' out-of-pocket costs for implementing the new link-based contribution methodology.
Assessing Contributions Based on Numbers
Defining Assessable Numbers for Contribution Purposes
For example, should we define assessable numbers consistent with the definition of “Assigned Numbers” in Part 52: “Assessable numbers are numbers that operate in the public switched telephone network under an agreement such as a contract or tariff at the request of specific end users or customers for their use, or numbers that are not yet working but for which a customer service order is pending. Commenters proposing alternative definitions of “assessable rates” should explain how their proposal meets our proposed premium reform goals.
Trends in Numbers
To what extent the growth in numbers is due to new services and applications, and to what extent is it due to the greater penetration of telephone services, such as mobile phone family subscriptions and use by younger children. What challenges would a number-based contribution system face if the amount of numbers were to shrink.
Differential Treatment of Certain Types of Numbers
96-45, at 2 (filed Oct. opposing the assessment of a number-based fee on paging companies and their customers); Letter from Kenneth Hardman, Counsel for the American Association of Paging Carriers, to Marlene H. We note that today there are approximately 14.8 million Lifeline subscribers.522 How would the exclusion of such numbers affect a numbers-based regime.
Use of a Hybrid System with a Numbers-Component
We ask commenters to provide data on the volume of numbers that will fall into this category. We ask commenters to provide data on the volume of numbers that would fall into each category of the proposed exemptions.
Policy Arguments Related to Numbers-Based Assessment
We seek to set the record straight on the potential benefits of a numbers-based contribution method. We also seek comment on whether a number-based system (compared to a connection-based system or the current revenue-based system) would be easier to understand.
Implementation
The additional costs associated with implementation and the reporting requirements outlined below outweigh the benefits of moving to a numbers-based methodology. We seek comment on what steps will need to be taken to transition between the current revenue-based system and a numbers-based system and how much time will be needed to ensure that the new process is applied in an equitable manner.
IMPROVING THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE CONTRIBUTION SYSTEM
In addition, time was needed for the participants and USAC to update their billing and tracking systems to accommodate the new methodology. Is the 12-month transition period sufficient to ensure that all affected parties have sufficient time to address any implementation issues that arise.
Updating the Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet
In this section, we seek comment on whether we should modify the process by which these forms are reviewed by soliciting public comment from interested parties before adopting revisions to the Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet and Instructions. However, the Commission did not adopt those instructions pursuant to the rulemaking provisions of the Administrative.
Revising the Frequency of Adjustments to the Contribution Factor
Fluctuations in the contribution factor from quarter to quarter are also the result of increased and decreased programmatic demand. We seek comment on the merits and technical aspects of the rule change to address quarter-to-quarter fluctuations in the contribution factor.
Pay-and-Dispute Policy
In 2004, the Commission adopted rules implementing the requirements of the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 (DCIA).588 The Commission's DCIA rules require that entities or. Emergency Request for Review of Universal Service Administrator's Decision by Level 3 Communications, LLC, et al., WC Docket No. Bur. 2010), pending application for review (Level 3 Order) (noting that the contributor could have avoided incurring late fees, interest and penalties by paying the full invoiced amount in accordance with the Payment and Dispute Policy); Federal State Joint Board on Universal Service et al., CC Docket No. Bur. 2008) (providing exemption from FCC Form 499-Q review deadline, in part due to contributor's compliance with wage and dispute policy).
Oversight and Accountability
We request comment on whether we should assume as a performance goal that a certain percentage of reporting entities submit their worksheets on time. We also request comment on any revisions to our rules that would create appropriate incentives for timely filing.
Paper-Filing Fees
We request comment on what additional outreach and training USAC may need to do to encourage more reporting entities to submit their worksheets on time and electronically. We request comment on the merits and technicalities of a rule change assessing a paper filing fee.
Filer Registration and Deregistration
RECOVERY OF UNIVERSAL SERVICE CONTRIBUTIONS FROM END USERS
The statutory framework established by Congress in the Act governs the recovery of universal service contributions by telecommunications service providers.611 Although an investor may generally recover its universal service contributions from its customers, the Commission has set two limitations on doing so. First, the "federal universal service unit price" may not "exceed the interstate telecommunications portion of that customer's bill multiplied by the appropriate contribution factor."612 Second, eligible telecommunications carriers (ETCs) that are original LECs may not go through federal billing universal service to its Lifeline subscribers, except for reimbursement of "costs of contributions related to the provision of interstate telecommunications services not supported by the mechanisms of the Universal Service Commission."613 In practice, this means that the original ETC.
Pass-Through of USF Contributions as Separate Line Item Charge
Federal Universal Duty contribution costs are not recoverable by contributors as a separate line postage charge at a customer's expense. We seek comment on our authority to impose these limitations on contributors' recovery of utility contributions from their customers.
Segregation of USF Pass-Through Charges
We request comments on whether sections 4(i) and 254 of the Act or other statutory provisions provide sufficient authority to adopt them. We are interested in comments on whether the Commission should adopt such a requirement and details on its implementation.
Limiting Pass-Through of USF Charges to Lifeline Subscribers
PROCEDURAL MATTERS
Persons making oral presentations are reminded that notes summarizing the presentation must (1) identify all persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at which the presentation was made and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments during the presentation. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex parte meetings are considered written ex parte presentations and must be filed in accordance with Rule 1.1206(b).
Filing Requirements
In proceedings governed by rule 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and any attachments thereto, shall be filed at. All applications should be addressed to the Secretary of the Commission, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
All paper documents delivered by hand or by courier to the Secretary of the Commission should be delivered to the FCC headquarters at 445 12th St., SW, Room TW-A325. Postal Service First Class, Expedited and Priority Mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW, Washington DC 20554.
Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis
ORDERING CLAUSES
The Commission has not developed a small business standard that specifically applies to these small businesses. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for RespOrgs.