Majority Statement

• Conrad Burns

  Senator
  Read statement

  Majority Statement

  Conrad Burns

  STATEMENT OF SENATOR CONRAD BURNS
  U.S. SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE AND TRANSPORTATION
  HEARING ON UNIVERSAL SERVICE CONTRIBUTIONS
  FEBRUARY 28, 2006
  

  Congress and this nation have had a commitment to a Universal Service for almost 100 years- a commitment to make affordable telephone service available to as many Americans as possible- rural or urban, rich or poor. The core principles behind Universal Service are to provide the same opportunities for rural Americans to participate in the nation’s educational and economic system that exist for Americans in urban areas.

  The Universal Service Fund helps keep telephone service affordable in high cost areas such as Montana, helps ensure that schools and libraries receive access to Internet, and helps link rural health care facilities to urban medical centers, promoting telemedicine.

  Without support from the Universal Service Fund phone bills in high cost areas around the country would increase dramatically – For example an average Montanan living in a rural area would pay an additional $329.97 each year to receive telecommunications services. Many schoolchildren would not have access to the Internet – access vital to help children do homework, conduct research and compete in a global economy. Many people in remote communities would not have access to health care using the Internet – an important issue in Montana where many counties do not even have a doctor.

  Without Universal Service, rural businesses and consumers would be completely shut out of the communications revolution. Universal Service provides the opportunity for every American to participate fully in the Internet economy.

  Just as rural electrification in the 1930s led to a surge of economic growth and raised living standards across rural America, Universal Service plays the same role in the Internet era.

  Acknowledging the diverse American landscape, Universal Service recognizes that the costs of providing telephone service to all corners of the U.S. vary widely, but that the nation as a whole benefits from a truly national network- that is, one that connects to as many Americans as possible.

  Universal Service also assures the nation of a secure, far-reaching network, at a time when our telecommunications infrastructure is essential to national preparedness; and assures all Americans of quality service at reasonable rates, no matter where they live.

  For those who say that the Universal Service no longer makes sense, or that it should be repealed or scaled back- I encourage them to visit Montana or other rural areas and see the fund in action. The day has not arrived when technology and the free market can make affordable telecommunications services available everywhere. Simply put, there is a lot of dirt between light bulbs in Montana- competition and technology have not changed that. Until that time arrives, Universal Service funds are the only alternative. As Chairman Stevens recently noted: “[The] Fund is crucial in keeping rural America on the information highway and not on an exit ramp.” At stake in this debate is no less than the future of rural America.

  That is not to say that changes do not need to be made to the Universal Service Fund. Recently, radical changes have taken place in the telecommunications industry negatively impacting the Universal Service Fund. Competition and new and improved technology are slowly starving the Universal Service Fund and threatening its survival. As consumers switch to new technologies like wireless service, email and Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP), the Universal Service Fund is slowly taking in less money each year. At the same time, the amount of money distributed by the fund is increasing. This situation is obviously not sustainable in the long run.

  These changes have made it necessary for Congress to take a look at revising the Universal Service Fund. We must make sure the law keeps pace with this changing landscape. In this regard, on February 8th of this year, the 10th anniversary of the Telecommunications Act, I introduced S.2256, The Internet and Universal Service Act of 2006 (NetUSA), to revise the Universal Service Fund to adapt to the radically changing telecommunications landscape. My NetUSA bill will shore up the Universal Service Fund, ensuring that investment in a ubiquitous, advanced telecommunications infrastructure can continue to all corners of the country. In general, the NetUSA bill would broaden the base of contributions into the Universal Service Fund, and it would govern more prudently the distributions of the funds.

  As I mentioned earlier, the Universal Service Fund is slowly taking in less money each year, necessitating a revision to the method by which contributions to the Universal Service Fund are collected. The guiding principle governing for any revision is that Universal Service support contribution mechanism should be equitable, nondiscriminatory and competitively neutral.

  The NetUSA bill achieves these goals. Among other things it requires the Federal Communications Commission within 180 days to develop a non-discriminatory and competitively neutral contribution methodology based on revenues, working telephone numbers, or any other current or successor identifier protocols or connection to the network, or any combination of these methodologies. My bill expressly permits the FCC to base the contribution methodology on interstate, intrastate, and international revenues.

  Additionally, the NetUSA bill expressly provides that a provider is not exempted from contributing to the fund solely on the basis that such provider is not eligible to receive Universal Service support. These and other provisions in the bill will strengthen the Universal Service Fund to ensure its continued survival so that the citizens of Montana and other parts of rural America remain on the information highway and not on an exit ramp. The Universal Service Fund is but one of many instances where the rapid change of technologies and the rise of competition have created many challenges in the telecommunications industry. I look forward to working with my colleagues to craft creative solutions to these issues that are so vital to our nation’s future.

• Ted Stevens

  Senator
  Read statement

  Majority Statement

  Ted Stevens

  STATEMENT OF SENATOR CONRAD BURNS
  U.S. SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE AND TRANSPORTATION
  HEARING ON UNIVERSAL SERVICE CONTRIBUTIONS
  FEBRUARY 28, 2006

  
  Congress and this nation have had a commitment to a Universal Service for almost 100 years- a commitment to make affordable telephone service available to as many Americans as possible- rural or urban, rich or poor. The core principles behind Universal Service are to provide the same opportunities for rural Americans to participate in the nation’s educational and economic system that exist for Americans in urban areas.

  The Universal Service Fund helps keep telephone service affordable in high cost areas such as Montana, helps ensure that schools and libraries receive access to Internet, and helps link rural health care facilities to urban medical centers, promoting telemedicine.

  Without support from the Universal Service Fund phone bills in high cost areas around the country would increase dramatically – For example an average Montanan living in a rural area would pay an additional $329.97 each year to receive telecommunications services. Many schoolchildren would not have access to the Internet – access vital to help children do homework, conduct research and compete in a global economy. Many people in remote communities would not have access to health care using the Internet – an important issue in Montana where many counties do not even have a doctor.

  Without Universal Service, rural businesses and consumers would be completely shut out of the communications revolution. Universal Service provides the opportunity for every American to participate fully in the Internet economy.

  Just as rural electrification in the 1930s led to a surge of economic growth and raised living standards across rural America, Universal Service plays the same role in the Internet era.

  Acknowledging the diverse American landscape, Universal Service recognizes that the costs of providing telephone service to all corners of the U.S. vary widely, but that the nation as a whole benefits from a truly national network- that is, one that connects to as many Americans as possible.

  Universal Service also assures the nation of a secure, far-reaching network, at a time when our telecommunications infrastructure is essential to national preparedness; and assures all Americans of quality service at reasonable rates, no matter where they live.

  For those who say that the Universal Service no longer makes sense, or that it should be repealed or scaled back- I encourage them to visit Montana or other rural areas and see the fund in action. The day has not arrived when technology and the free market can make affordable telecommunications services available everywhere. Simply put, there is a lot of dirt between light bulbs in Montana- competition and technology have not changed that. Until that time arrives, Universal Service funds are the only alternative. As Chairman Stevens recently noted: “[The] Fund is crucial in keeping rural America on the information highway and not on an exit ramp.” At stake in this debate is no less than the future of rural America.

  That is not to say that changes do not need to be made to the Universal Service Fund. Recently, radical changes have taken place in the telecommunications industry negatively impacting the Universal Service Fund. Competition and new and improved technology are slowly starving the Universal Service Fund and threatening its survival. As consumers switch to new technologies like wireless service, email and Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP), the Universal Service Fund is slowly taking in less money each year. At the same time, the amount of money distributed by the fund is increasing. This situation is obviously not sustainable in the long run.

  These changes have made it necessary for Congress to take a look at revising the Universal Service Fund. We must make sure the law keeps pace with this changing landscape. In this regard, on February 8th of this year, the 10th anniversary of the Telecommunications Act, I introduced S.2256, The Internet and Universal Service Act of 2006 (NetUSA), to revise the Universal Service Fund to adapt to the radically changing telecommunications landscape. My NetUSA bill will shore up the Universal Service Fund, ensuring that investment in a ubiquitous, advanced telecommunications infrastructure can continue to all corners of the country. In general, the NetUSA bill would broaden the base of contributions into the Universal Service Fund, and it would govern more prudently the distributions of the funds.

  As I mentioned earlier, the Universal Service Fund is slowly taking in less money each year, necessitating a revision to the method by which contributions to the Universal Service Fund are collected. The guiding principle governing for any revision is that Universal Service support contribution mechanism should be equitable, nondiscriminatory and competitively neutral.

  The NetUSA bill achieves these goals. Among other things it requires the Federal Communications Commission within 180 days to develop a non-discriminatory and competitively neutral contribution methodology based on revenues, working telephone numbers, or any other current or successor identifier protocols or connection to the network, or any combination of these methodologies. My bill expressly permits the FCC to base the contribution methodology on interstate, intrastate, and international revenues.

  Additionally, the NetUSA bill expressly provides that a provider is not exempted from contributing to the fund solely on the basis that such provider is not eligible to receive Universal Service support. These and other provisions in the bill will strengthen the Universal Service Fund to ensure its continued survival so that the citizens of Montana and other parts of rural America remain on the information highway and not on an exit ramp. The Universal Service Fund is but one of many instances where the rapid change of technologies and the rise of competition have created many challenges in the telecommunications industry. I look forward to working with my colleagues to craft creative solutions to these issues that are so vital to our nation’s future.
  

Testimony

• Mr. Glen Post

  Chief Executive Officer

  Century/Tel
  Read statement

  Testimony

  Mr. Glen Post

  Click here for a copy of Mr. Post's testimony.

• Mr. Tom Simmons

  Vice President of Public Policy

  Midcontinent Communications
  Read statement

  Testimony

  Mr. Tom Simmons

  Click here for a copy of Mr. Simmons' testimony

• Mr. Trent Boaldin

  President

  Epic Tough Co.
  Read statement

  Testimony

  Mr. Trent Boaldin

  Click here for a copy of Mr Boaldin's testimony.

• Ms. Bonnie Cramer

  Member, Board of Directors

  AARP
  Read statement

  Testimony

  Ms. Bonnie Cramer

  Click here for a copy of Ms. Cramer's testimony

• Mr. Paul Garnett

  Assistant Vice President Regulatory Affairs

  CTIA
  Read statement

  Testimony

  Mr. Paul Garnett

  Click here for a copy of Mr. Garnett's testimony