US:PA-4: Re: Summary of Universal Service Task Force Report

Re: Summary of Universal Service Task Force Report

Bob Carlitz (bob@hamlet.phyast.pitt.edu)
Thu, 2 Oct 1997 17:23:04 -0400 (EDT) 

> What's the Task Force's view (or views) on the matter of consortia for
> aggregating demand, e.g.?  Can libraries and schools enter into formal
> partnerships with municipalities, counties, community networks, etc. and
> have those entities be eligible for discounts within expanded

	They seem to be ambivalent.  If you read the Task
	Force report (which is online in the Resource Library),
	they point out that the limitations on aggregation
	conflict with the state's strategy as expressed through
	Link-to-Learn.  At the same time they recommend
	only that the state follow the federal guidelines
	in every detail.  This means that community groups
	and local government would be ineligible and consortia
	including these groups could not negotiate prices
	which would qualify as pre-discount prices.

	HOWEVER, I learned something yesterday that is very
	interesting.  I asked what qualifies as interstate
	and what qualifies as intrastate.  The answer was
	that it depends solely upon who is selling you the
	service.  Thus most Internet-related expenses qualify
	as intrastate.  This means that the PUC has complete
	leeway in setting discount schedules and eligibility
	on such items.  Previously I had thought that it 
	would be imossible to account for intrastate vs.
	interstate traffic, forcing the state PUCs simply
	to endorse the FCC's criteria.  But now I htink
	there is more leeway here.

> definitions?  There's already some case law with respect to the FCC's
> rights in terms of restricting the states from interpreting portions of

	Notably the local interconnect ruling, which was
	successfully challenged on these grounds.  Do you
	know where PA's local interconnect ruling stands?
	I think that local interconnection issues will end
	up being far more important than Universal Service
	in determining who gets what and for what price.

> the Telecom Act.  Is this likely to be one of those areas?  If so, is
> Pennsylvania prepared to address the matter?
>
> 				Dave Farley

	[The preceding reply was sent in a private message
	to Dave Farley.  He asked me to include his message
	in the public discussion, which I've done.  In
	order to provide context for the answer that he
	has sent to this message, I'm posting my comments
	as well.  Apologies for the delay in transmission
	of these remarks.]

	Bob Carlitz