Different approaches before and after Telecom Act Before Telecom Act –Implicit cross subsidies –Based on rate of return approach –ILECs only receivers/IXCs.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Digital Divide: The End of Equality? Three generations of "Universal Service" Current situation and mechanisms Issues with "3rd generation" Universal Service.
Advertisements

Take Charge of Your Finances Course Introduction Trivia “Take Charge of Your Finances” Advanced Level.
Feb , ETC DESIGNATION Feb , ETC Designation  What is an Eligible Telecommunications Carrier (ETC)?  Carrier designated.
Different approaches before and after Telecom Act Before Telecom Act –Implicit cross subsidies –Based on rate of return approach –ILECs only receivers/IXCs.
The Affordable Care Act Reduces Premium Cost Growth and Increases Access to Affordable Care Before ACA, Small Employers Faced Many Obstacles to Covering.
Wireline Competition Bureau 2004 Promoting Real Consumer Choice and Investment in Broadband Facilities.
Cost Issues in International Settlements March 1998 DNTA David N. Townsend & Associates
MOSS ADAMS LLP | 1 © Moss Adams LLP | April 2012 V2 Rural Telecom Revenues FCC Reform Spring 2012 Presented to ABC Communications.
Federal Universal Service Overview NARUC Summer Meeting July 2007 Ray Baum Commissioner Oregon Public Utility Commission.
MOSS ADAMS LLP | 1 Tribal Telecom 2013 Federal Telecommunications Regulatory Updates.
Universal Service Administrative Company THE ABCs OF E-RATE March 1, 2007.
Intercarrier Compensation. Nextel calls to BellSouth BellSouth pays to terminate Nextel calls In aggregate, it may cause BellSouth to increase capacity.
ECO 436 Industry Seminar Dr. David G. Loomis Illinois State University
FY16 Chapter 70 Aid Preliminary House 1 Proposal March 4, 2015.
3/99©GVNW Consulting Inc. Separations 101 Rural Task Force Meeting March 3, 1999 Bob Schoonmaker.
Cross-Border Infrastructure: A Toolkit Universal Service Session on Regulation & Accountability Max Bradford Castalia The views expressed here are those.
Retirement Planning and Employee Benefits for Financial Planners
Reforming and Restructuring the Hospital Indigent Care Pool Methodology New York State Department of Health Commissioner Richard F. Daines, M.D. November.
11/27/2007 Pension Reforms in China and Taiwan Hongxia Jiao Yi-Ying Chen.
Carriers of Last Resort: Updating an Old Doctrine Presented to Mid-America Regulator’s Conference June 16, 2008 Peter Bluhm, Principal, Telecommunications.
© 2012 Medical Mutual of Ohio Fees and Taxes in Healthcare Reform Patricia Decensi Vice President, Assistant General Counsel Medical Mutual of Ohio.
Customers and Providers Rights & Obligations – Part 2 Joel Dohmeier Director - State Governmental Affairs TDS TELECOM June 16, 2009 MARC.
The Public Network Chapter 4 Tamra Dean.
NMECG PRESENTATION TO THE NEW MEXICO PUBLIC REGULATION COMMISSION APRIL 3, 2012 THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION’S ORDERS TO IMPLEMENT REFORM AND.
Support For Rural America William Maher Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau July 2, 2003 Universal Service and The FCC.
The Public Network Chapter 4. Objectives In this chapter, you will learn to: Explain, in general terms, the structure of the public telephone network.
The Universal Service Fund & USAC’s Role in Administration
Methods of Regulation Rate of return Incentive systems –Rate freeze –Rate bands or ranges –Price Caps.
Carriers Carriers carry traffic for a fee Must have rights of way to lay wire Given some monopoly protection Regulated but being deregulated.
Medicare, Medicaid, and Health Care Reform Todd Gilmer, PhD Professor of Health Policy and Economics Department of Family and Preventive Medicine 1.
Gary Rawson MS Dept. of Information Technology Services (ITS) Connect MS 2015 Gulf Coast Conference.
TA 96 on pricing Prices for interconnection and for UNEs to be based on cost, to be nondiscriminatory, and may include a reasonable profit –Cost to be.
ITA FCC WORKSHOP MARCH 14, Appreciate being here, but... I’d rather be playing Guard for the New York Knicks 2.
ITS 302 Purposes of the course –Review the history of US telecommunications as a case study –Examine the basics of regulation, especially as they apply.
The Public Network Chapter 4. Objectives In this chapter, you will learn to: Explain, in general terms, the structure of the public telephone network.
FROM TRADITIONAL LANDLINE TO IP TELEPHONY: A POSSIBLE ANOTHER WAY Bill Levis Colorado Consumer Counsel June 10, 2013.
Missoula Plan Plan reflects themes that always seem to appear – Different treatment for different ILECs by size and by type of regulation (price cap versus.
Access Charges The major questions –What services did IXC’s require in order to provide their interLATA toll and private line services? –What to do about.
Modernizing Universal Service Dennis Weller Chief Economist VerizonNARUC Summer Meetings July 2007.
Proposal for Reforming the Intercarrier Compensation and Universal Service Systems CTIA – The Wireless Association™ May 18, 2005.
Comptel/ASCENT February 17, Tom Sugrue Vice President Government Affairs T-Mobile.
Taxes and Social Security. Understanding Taxes  Taxes are a form of payment to the government to support government services.  There are three types.
The Governor’s Plan for a Healthier Indiana
McGraw-Hill©2003 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. Chapter 8 Telephone and Cable TV Networks: Residential Connection to the Internet.
The Nation Broadband Plan & Its Effects on USF and ICC Reform Krista K. Tanner Iowa Utilities Board June 7, 2010.
How Telephone Companies Make Money Doug Kitch Vince Wiemer Vince Wiemer.
1 Intercarrier Compensation May 27, 2004 Glenn Brown
Cost Recovery Mechanisms MATI Tribal Telecommunications Conference June 7-9, 2004 Presented by Doug Kitch & Vince Wiemer Alexicon, Inc.
Universal Service Reform CSG September Federal Universal Service Program Funds rural & high-cost areas to provide comparable technology and rates;
Wireline Competition Bureau 2006 Annual Report January 17, 2007.
The Regulation of Network Industries Simon Wilkie. Caltech Lecture for May 7, 2004.
Intercarrier Compensation: Rate of Return Carrier Impacts Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission – Workshop February 28, 2012 Jeff Dupree NECA.
Jefferson City Revenue Forecast Staff Analysis. Accuracy in Estimates Important to Make Best Use of Tax Payer Money.
Competitive Universal Service TC 310 June 5, 2008.
Per-Minute Access Charges Per-Minute Access Charges to long distance companies Rates for 1996 through 1998 from Telecommunications Industry Revenue: 1998,
Comparative Telecommunications Law Spring, 2007 Prof. Karl Manheim 10: Universal Service Copyright © 2007.
FY17 Chapter 70 Aid Preliminary House 2 Proposal January 27, 2016.
Industry Overview AT&T and the Bell System Post Divestiture Factors in the Emergence of Competition to the Bells The Vision of the Telecommunications Act.
+ Universal Service Administrative Company Description: Created in 1997 as a non-profit subsidiary of the National Exchange carrier Association (NECA).
Ch. 14 Section 2. During fiscal year 2000, the federal gov. took in more that $1.8 trillion in taxes. If you divide up this federal tax revenue among.
© 2010 AT&T Intellectual Property. All rights reserved. AT&T and the AT&T logo are trademarks of AT&T Intellectual Property. Intercarrier Compensation.
Structural Separation and Universal Service Conference on “The Enduring Lessons of the Breakup of AT&T: A Twenty-Five Year Retrospective” University of.
Disparity in Operations: Comparative Analysis of Small ILEC CHCF-A Carriers to Non-CHCF-A Carriers Communications DivisionJanuary 2010* * Revised as of.
ITS 602 Purposes of the course
Overview of the FCC’s Rate-of-Return Reforms
Rural Communities Broadband Roundtable October 24, 2013 Tupper Lake NY
Different approaches before and after Telecom Act
Reciprocal Compensation
CTIA – The Wireless Association™ May 18, 2005
Trends on Telecommunication Services for the Americas Region
Presentation transcript:

Different approaches before and after Telecom Act Before Telecom Act –Implicit cross subsidies –Based on rate of return approach –ILECs only receivers/IXCs only payers After Telecom Act –Explicit subsidy payments –Based on economic costs (except for small ILECs) –ILECs and CLECs receivers/all providers payers

Different types of LECs Large ILECs (including RBOCs) –New Cost Proxy Model –CALLS plan Small ILECs (mostly rural) –Actual costs (no Cost Proxy Model) –Continuation of former support programs –Part of the MAGS plan CLECs –Depends on the status of the ILEC with whom they compete

The Loop Cost recovery: 75% from state and local 25% from interstate --SLC and CCLC (unless you are a small high cost ILEC)

The Switch Cost recovery: weighted DEM from interstate jurisdiction for small ILECs (under 50,000 lines, usually “Ma and Pa” local telcos)

Before Telecom Act of 96 Universal service support paid by –IXCs (based on presubscribed lines) LifeLine and LinkUp Universal service fund –LECs (who left the CCLC pool) Long term support

High Cost Loops Universal Service Fund (former USF) –Support for loops in excess of average loop cost Small company: 65% of amount between 115%--150%; 75% of amount over 150% Larger company: 10% of amount between 115%--160%; 30% of amount between 160%--200%; 60% of amount between 200%-- 250%; 75% of amount over 250% –Based on national average of actual loop costs of all ILECs –Before breakup of AT&T—recovered through intra-company cost shifting—no need for separate fund –Before end of NECA CCLC pool—recovered through NECA pool—no need for separate fund –Before Telecom Act of 1996—fund paid into only by the IXCs; payments made only to ILECs

Averaged CCLC Long term support payments –Paid by ILECs who left the CCLC pool –Paid into the CCLC pool so that averaged CCLC would be charged by the smaller high cost companies –Support received by ILECs in the CCLC pool

Example Average-to-low cost LEC: –Loop cost covered by Interstate jurisdiction (25%) –SLC and CCLC State jurisdiction (75%) –State access charges –Contribution from intraLATA long distance –Local service charges

Example High cost LEC –Loop cost covered by Interstate jurisdiction –SLC and CCLC –Long term support –Universal service fund State jurisdiction –State access charges –Contribution from intraLATA long distance –Local service charges

Weighted DEM Recovered by small (under 50,000 line) companies through: –Access charges (specifically local switching rates) if filed own tariff –NECA switched access pool if participated in NECA pools Paid by IXCs through access charges

After the Telecom Act Telecom Act adds new categories to the list –Schools and libraries –Rural health care providers Telecom Act continues LifeLine and LinkUp Telecom Act injects competition into universal service –Eligible Telecommunications Carrier

The challenge Non-discriminatory, pro-competitive high cost support –Whose costs do you use? ILECs? CLECs? –What costs reflect competitive rather than monopoly marketplace? The answer: a Cost Proxy Model

The cost proxy model approach Calculate nationally averaged forward-looking cost per line: $21.92 Establish benchmark for support: 135% of national average, or $29.59 Calculate state averages—only for non-rural carriers For states that exceed the benchmark, multiply the amount over$29.50 by 76%--multiply the result by number of lines served and that is support for the state; if state average is below $29.59, no support for that state Federal support is targeted to the highest cost wire centers in that state

Issues with the proxy model Lots of arguments over the inputs Huge shifts in subsides among states –Maine ILECs got no support under old system; get $10.2 million under proxy model; California ILECs got $6.3 million under old system, get nothing under proxy model –Hold harmless provision – phased out $1 per line per year Applied only to the non-rural carriers—small “Ma and Pa” companies stay under old system and even get more support if show growth in lines or more investment

So what do we have now? One fund, called a Universal Service Fund, that includes payments for a host of universal service programs Paid into by all telecommunications carriers (still at % of interstate revenues) Funds received by a host of entities, including ILECs, CLECs.

What’s in the fund? Low Income Support Programs (4 th quarter of 2002) –Lifeline: $172 million –LinkUp America: $8 million –Toll Limitation: $1 million Rural health care support (capped at $400 million annually)--$22.5 million Schools and Libraries support (capped at $2.25 billion annually--$565.2 million for 4 th quarter 2002

What’s in the fund? High cost program –Continuation of old support programs High cost loop--Continuation of former USF fund (annual support for rural carriers $1 billion) Local switching support (DEM)—total annual support of $402 million Long term support—for participants of NECA CCLC pool--$498 million annual support –New support programs Interstate access support--created by CALLS plan and capped at $640 million annually Interstate common line support—created by MAGS plan and currently $370 million in annual support Non-rural forward looking cost support (from Proxy Models) –Non-rural carriers in 8 states ($58 Million in 4 th quarter 2002) –Non-rural carriers in 6 states get interim hold-harmless support ($30 million in 4 th quarter 2002)

So what are the controversial issues? Some carriers make money on their contribution—owe the fund % but collect as much as 11% from consumers Who is eligible to be an ETC? How are the schools and libraries using their support? Cable modem providers, VoIP providers don’t pay into the fund—unfair advantage? Base for the USF is shrinking, so the contribution percentage keeps going up—FCC looking for different basis for collecting funds—for example, based on number of customers instead of revenues