WPC 2 BKZW CG Times3|iXw PE37XP03-28-96 02:27p Cincinnati Bell MSC JBHJBH~CCCddCYdYdYCdd88d8ddddJN8ddddYYdYd3dd"dddCddddddddd8YYYYYY~Y~Y~Y~YC8C8C8C8ddddddddddYdddddsddddYdddd~d~d~d~dddddddddd8ddddCdoddd~8~d~d~8~8dvddddJddkNkNkdkd~d~d~dddddddYYCddCCCWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddCYQQddddddFddddFCChhd44ddzzdddwooChdF"dhd9dCCzCddoddCdYds]zUwdYYCCCCz~ozoY~NYdYC8YooYdYzsdzdd~YYzozzz~CdzYzzzzCCdddddddzCsdYCx \   pxtllXphh<X\H|HP4aserJet 4 Network PrinterHPLAS4.PRS 4Xw PE37\K%oXP2,   Њ3|i03-28-96 02:27p Cincinnati Bell MSC JBHJBH"S^3EVggEEEg3E39ggggggggggEEg~~~~E[r~~gr~~rrP9PWgEgg[g[9gg99[9ggggPP9g[[[PR9RoE3EE"EEECEEEEEEdEg9zdzdzdzdzdYzYzYzYzYC8C8C8C8dddddddddoYzdggdoYdzd~g~g~g[[[[g~[~[~[~[ggggggggE8EgEEEgd[E[r9rErEo8r9gzgggg‰~P~P~PgPdNgPgPrErErEgggggr[rPoNNHd3lgPgggggg9@gFdddgF,CrrgEEggzzdddkggErdF2 Z^ 0XHP4aserJet 4 Network PrinterHPLAS4.PRS 4XN\  P\K%oXPЫXN\  PXP(hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularXX*0 x7X),h  Z 2CG Times (W1) RegularX"S^3ETggEEEgt3E39gggggggggg99ttt[~rEP~rr~•~E9E`gE[g[g[Egg99g9ggggEP9gggg[c)coE3EE"EEECEEEEEEdEg9YYYYYY~Y~Y~Y~YC8C8C8C8ddddddddddYggdddsdd[[[[[[g~[~[~[~[ggggggggE8EgEEEgoPEg~9~E~E~8~9gvggggEEErPkNrPrP~E~E~Eggggg•g~[YNHd3]gE[ggggg9@gFdddgF%C[[gEEggzzdddwrrE[dF2B"S^3ErggΫEEEgu3E39ggggggggggEEuuug~Pg•~rΕE9ExgEgr[r[Egr9Er9rgrr[PErggg[Q-QkE3EE"EEECEEEEEEdEr9dddddΕYYYYYN8N8N8N8oddddooooddrgdddzoggg[[[[r[[[[ggggggrrP8PrPEPrrgEr9EEN9rrrggΕ[[[rPoNrPrPEEErrrrrΕg[YNHx3ogEgggggg>DgFdddgF9CgggEEggzzddd~rrEgdF"Sh5^;NhddCCCdCCCCddddddddddCCȲdzNdzzozzzCCCddCddYdYFdo88d8odddNN8oYdYNdddddd"dddCddddddddd8dddddYYYYYN8N8N8N8oddddoooozYddddzYdzddddYddddddddddddddood8ddddNdkdddz8zdzdzFz8oooddהNddoNoNododzdzdzdooooozdzNzNCddCCCWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddNdYYddddddCddddCCCkkd88ddzzdddsssCkdC"Ȑd~d岲9dCCȐzȲCddodȐȅdCdYdsȐ`ȐȐȮzȐUwŐdȐddCCCCŅzozoYNzYYYN8YooYdYzzdzddzYzYzozzzNdzzzYzzzzCCdddddddzzzzCzdYCx"Sh5^$/><>g`)))>F)">>>>>>>>>>""FFF7rYRRYKEYY)0YKnYYEYREKYYuYYK)"):>)7>7>7)>>"">"`>>>>)0">>Y>>7;;C))){)))())))))<)>"W5W5W5W5W5nRR5L5L5L5L5(!(!(!(!YY>WK7K7K7K7Y>Y>Y>Y>Y>Y>Y>Y>)!)>)))>XC0)Y>K"K)K)L!K"Y>GY>Y>Y>Y>nYR)R)R)E0@/E0E0K)K)K)Y>Y>Y>Y>Y>uYY>K7N5N+d8>)7>>>>T>"&k>*<<<>k*(77>{))xx>>II[x!"rSmall Circlei"(o\F  tHg"Times New RomanTimes New Roman BoldCG Times Bold ItalicTimes New Roman ItalicTimes New Roman Bold Italic"S^3PrggEEEgu3E39ggggggggggEEuuugPg~~r~~~E9EugEgg[g[Egr99g9rgggPP9r[g[PH-HuE3EE"EEECEEEEEEdEg9ddddd•YYYYYN8N8N8N8oddddoooozYdggdzYdzdggg[[[[g[[[[ggggggrrP8PgPEPgkgEg~9~E~EzF~9rrrgg•PPPrPoNrPrP~E~E~Errrrr~[~PzNNH3ggPgggggg7>gCdddgC9CgggEEggzzdddsrrEgdC"S^)4>>g`)))>S)">>>>>>>>>>))SSS>rKKRYKKYY)7REgRYKYK>EYKgKEE0"04>)>>7>7">>""7"Y>>>>00">7R7701"1C)))n)))())))))<)>"IY>WK>K>R7R7R7R7Y>K7K7K7K7Y>Y>Y>Y>Y>Y>Y>Y>)!)>)))>b<7)R7E"E)E)C!E"R>IR>R>Y>Y>uRK0K0K0>00>0E)E)E)Y>Y>Y>Y>Y>gRE7E0C/N+dA>0>>>>>V>"&k>*<<<>k*(EE>n))xx>>II[x>n)E<k{*2(\#eo&&' ;7iC3,ƒXi\  P6XP <7nC3,4Xn4  pX|4xC;,%Xx*0 x]7X|YH($,%hH*0 x]7h >W!?(,,h?\  P6hPZ k5hC3,:Xh*f9 xr XX l6jC3,Q3Xj9 xOXZ mX >(,:h>*f9 xr hX                   1, 2, 3,QNumbersrclei"V(?\F oV PH  1.heading 1x(Et¯heading 1B(_ ;RK+_P¯t ;f—+_bMC#2PP# #A\  PP#heading 2x(Et¯heading 2B(_ ;RK+_P¯t ;f—+_bPF#i2PP#  #A\  PP#2,()*+heading 3x(Et¯heading 3B(_ ;RK+_P¯t ;f—+_bMC#XN\  PXP# #A\  PP#heading 4x(Et¯heading 4B(_ ;RK+_P¯t ;f—+_bPF#XN\  PXP#  #A\  PP#heading 5x(Et¯heading 5B(_ ;RK+_P¯t ;f—+_bM C #K2P P# #A\  P P#heading 6x(Et¯heading 6B(_ ;RK+_P¯t ;f—+_bP F #K2P P#  #A\  P P#2b/ , T- - .heading 7x(Et¯heading 7B(_ ;RK+_P¯t ;f—+_b &  heading 8x(Et¯heading 8B(_ ;RK+_P¯t ;f—+_b )  heading 9x(Et¯heading 9B(_ ;RK+_P¯t ;f—+_b )  Default ParaEt¯Default Paragraph Font;RK+_P¯t ;f—+_b ;;#XN\  P XP##A\  PP#23 /0203Body Textx(Et¯Body TextB(_ ;RK+_P¯t ;f—+_b  annotation Et¯ annotation reference;RK+_P¯t ;f—+_b;;#4\  PP##A\  PP#annotation tEt¯annotation text ;RK+_P¯t ;f—+_bw4 <DL!` hp x (#Attention LiEt¯Attention Line ;RK+_P¯t ;f—+_b$  2>63455Block QuotatEt¯Block Quotation ;RK+_P¯t ;f—+_b&1t ;x(Et¯Block Quotation First;RK+_P¯t ;f—+_b& 2t ;x(Et¯Block Quotation Last ;RK+_P¯t ;f—+_b&!"Body Text InEt¯Body Text Indent ; RK+_P¯t ;f—+_b#$29p6778Body Text KeEt¯Body Text Keep ;!RK+_P¯t ;f—+_b#%&captionx(Et¯captionB(_ ;"RK+_P¯t ;f—+_bH'>(#:\  PP##A\  PP#Document LabEt¯Document Label ;#RK+_P¯t ;f—+_bM)C*#u\  PP# #A\  PP# Emphasisx(Et¯ EmphasisB(_ ;$RK+_P¯t ;f—+_b>+>,#XN\  PXP##A\  PP#2A9:<$=<`? endnote refEt¯ endnote reference ;%RK+_P¯t ;f—+_b>->.#XN\  PXP##A\  PP#endnote textEt¯endnote text(_ ;&RK+_P¯t ;f—+_b/0w4 <DL!#:\  PP##A\  PP#` hp x (#footerx(Et¯footer$B(_ ;'RK+_P¯t ;f—+_b12!` hp x (#Footer Even(Et¯Footer Even(_ ;(RK+_P¯t ;f—+_b34!` hp x (#2I<A< DFF HFooter FirstEt¯Footer First(_ ;)RK+_P¯t ;f—+_b564 <DL!` hp x (#Footer Odd(Et¯Footer Odd(_ ;*RK+_P¯t ;f—+_b78!"` hp x (#Footnote BasEt¯Footnote Base_ ;+RK+_P¯t ;f—+_b9:w4 <DL!#:\  PP##A\  PP#` hp x (# footnote reEt¯ footnote reference ;,RK+_P¯t ;f—+_b >;><#XN\  PXP##A\  PP#2S!I"<LL#<N$<Pfootnote texEt¯footnote text_ ;-RK+_P¯t ;f—+_b!=>w4 <DL!#:\  PP##A\  P P#` hp x (#headerx(Et¯header$B(_ ;.RK+_P¯t ;f—+_b"?@!` hp x (#Header Base(Et¯Header Base(_ ;/RK+_P¯t ;f—+_b#AB!` hp x (#Header Even(Et¯Header Even(_ ;0RK+_P¯t ;f—+_b$CD!` hp x (#2lY%<2S&<nU'W(XHeader FirstEt¯Header First(_ ;1RK+_P¯t ;f—+_b%EF4 <DL!` hp x (#Header Odd(Et¯Header Odd(_ ;2RK+_P¯t ;f—+_b&GH!"` hp x (#Heading BaseEt¯Heading Base(_ ;3RK+_P¯t ;f—+_b'MICJ#2P!P# #A\  P"P# Lead-in EmpEt¯ Lead-in Emphasis ;4RK+_P¯t ;f—+_b(AKAL#XN\  P#XP#  #A\  P$P#2a)Y*2lZ+2\,2^ line numberEt¯ line number(_ ;5RK+_P¯t ;f—+_b);M;N#C2P%P##A\  P&P#List;6x(Et¯List$B(_ ;6RK+_P¯t ;f—+_b*OP4 <DL!` hp x (#List 2x(Et¯List 2$B(_ ;7RK+_P¯t ;f—+_b+QR4` <DL!` hp x (#List 3x(Et¯List 3$B(_ ;8RK+_P¯t ;f—+_b,ST` <DL!` hp x (#2i-24a.2fc/2e02gList 4x(Et¯List 4$B(_ ;9RK+_P¯t ;f—+_b-UV <DL!` hp x (#List 5x(Et¯List 5$B(_ ;:RK+_P¯t ;f—+_b.WX <DL!` hp x (#List First(Et¯List First(_ ;;RK+_P¯t ;f—+_b/YZ4 <DL!` hp x (#List Lastx(Et¯List LastB(_ ;<RK+_P¯t ;f—+_b0[\4 <DL!` hp x (#2Vl1.j2j3Bk4kList Number(Et¯List Number(_ ;=RK+_P¯t ;f—+_b1]^List Number Et¯List Number 2_ ;>RK+_P¯t ;f—+_b2_`3t ;?x(Et¯List Number 3_ ;?RK+_P¯t ;f—+_b3ab4t ;@x(Et¯List Number 4_ ;@RK+_P¯t ;f—+_b4cd2n5l6m7m8&n5t ;Ax(Et¯List Number 5_ ;ARK+_P¯t ;f—+_b5ef6t ;Bx(Et¯List Number First ;BRK+_P¯t ;f—+_b6gh7t ;Cx(Et¯List Number Last ;CRK+_P¯t ;f—+_b7ijmacroDx(Et¯macro$B(_ ;DRK+_P¯t ;f—+_b8Ek;l#d6X@'@##A\  P(P#2s90o:q;r<2sMessage HeadEt¯Message Header ;ERK+_P¯t ;f—+_b9.mn  ` DL!T$&#K2P)P##A\  P*P#` hp x (# page numberEt¯ page number(_ ;FRK+_P¯t ;f—+_b:>o>p#XN\  P+XP# #A\  P,P#Picturex(Et¯PictureB(_ ;GRK+_P¯t ;f—+_b;#qrSubject LineEt¯Subject Line(_ ;HRK+_P¯t ;f—+_b<$st2z=s>t?nw@z SuperscriptEt¯ Superscript(_ ;IRK+_P¯t ;f—+_b=>u>v#XN\  P-XP##A\  P.P#Memo to textEt¯Memo to text(_ ;JRK+_P¯t ;f—+_b>1wx  4 <DL!T$&)\+- 0d47l9;>t@B$E|GI,LNP4SUW#&R2P/&P# #A\  P0P#` hp x (#8t ;Kx(Et¯Message Header Last ;KRK+_P¯t ;f—+_b?.yz  ` DL!T$&#K2P1P##A\  P2P#` hp x (#Line;Lx(Et¯Line$B(_ ;LRK+_P¯t ;f—+_b@*{ |??US2b}AzBf{C{Dz|List Bullet(Et¯List Bullet(_ ;MRK+_P¯t ;f—+_bA}~List Bullet Et¯List Bullet First ;NRK+_P¯t ;f—+_bB9t ;Ox(Et¯List Bullet Last ;ORK+_P¯t ;f—+_bCSubtitlex(Et¯SubtitleB(_ ;PRK+_P¯t ;f—+_bDMC#i2P3P##A\  P4P#2 E}Fn~G~H Message HeaEt¯ Message Header Label;QRK+_P¯t ;f—+_bEAA#C2P5P#  #A\  P6P#10 ;Rx(Et¯List Bullet 2_ ;RRK+_P¯t ;f—+_bF11 ;Sx(Et¯List Bullet 3_ ;SRK+_P¯t ;f—+_bG12 ;Tx(Et¯List Bullet 4_ ;TRK+_P¯t ;f—+_bH2vI>JȀKbL13 ;Ux(Et¯List Bullet 5_ ;URK+_P¯t ;f—+_bI14 ;Vx(Et¯Message Header First ;VRK+_P¯t ;f—+_bJ.  ` DL!T$&#K2P7P##A\  P8P#` hp x (#List ContinuEt¯List Continue_ ;WRK+_P¯t ;f—+_bK15 ;Xx(Et¯List Continue 2 ;XRK+_P¯t ;f—+_bL2.MN2OPF16 ;Yx(Et¯List Continue 3 ;YRK+_P¯t ;f—+_bM17 ;Zx(Et¯List Continue 5 ;ZRK+_P¯t ;f—+_bN18 ;[x(Et¯List Continue 4 ;[RK+_P¯t ;f—+_bOTitle\x(Et¯Title$B(_ ;\RK+_P¯t ;f—+_bPMC#2P9P# #A\  P:P#2ʉQ`RSntTDate;]x(Et¯Date$B(_ ;]RK+_P¯t ;f—+_bQNormal IndenEt¯Normal Indent_ ;^RK+_P¯t ;f—+_bRBibliogrphy(Et¯Bibliography(_ ;RK+_P¯t ;f—+_bS Tech Initx(Et¯Initialize Technical StyleRK+_P¯t ;f—+_bT 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 Technical2uUVWJXa1Technical+_b¯tTechnical Document Style$B(_ ;RK+_PU4"     a2Technical+_b¯tTechnical Document Style$B(_ ;RK+_PV*    a3Technical+_b¯tTechnical Document Style$B(_ ;RK+_PW'   a4Technical+_b¯tTechnical Document Style$B(_ ;RK+_PX&   2YZ,[\6a5Technical+_b¯tTechnical Document Style$B(_ ;RK+_PY&  . a6Technical+_b¯tTechnical Document Style$B(_ ;RK+_PZ&  . a7Technical+_b¯tTechnical Document Style$B(_ ;RK+_P[&  . a8Technical+_b¯tTechnical Document Style$B(_ ;RK+_P\&  . 2ʑ]^_`4Doc Initx(Et¯Initialize Document StyleRK+_P¯t ;f—+_b]    I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)DocumentҲa1Document+_b¯tDocument Style $B(_ ;RK+_P^F *  ׃  a2Document+_b¯tDocument Style $B(_ ;RK+_P_*    a3Document+_b¯tDocument Style $B(_ ;RK+_P`0     2aqbfmcfӒdq9a4Document+_b¯tDocument Style $B(_ ;RK+_Pa . a5Document+_b¯tDocument Style $B(_ ;RK+_Pb  a6Document+_b¯tDocument Style $B(_ ;RK+_Pc  a7Document+_b¯tDocument Style $B(_ ;RK+_Pd` ` ` 2}eqܓf*Mgswha8Document+_b¯tDocument Style $B(_ ;RK+_Pe` ` ` Pleadingx(Et¯Header for Numbered Pleading PaperP¯t ;f—+_bf   ,#\  P;P# X  y*dddyy*dddy HH1 HH2 HH3 HH4 HH5 HH6 HH7 HH8 HH9 H10 H11 H12 H13 H14 H15 H16 H17 H18 H19 H20 H21 H22 H23 H24 H25 H26 H27 H28   ӲBullet List(Et¯Indented Bullet List ;RK+_P¯t ;f—+_bg` ` ` a1Right Par+_b¯tRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers_ ;RK+_Ph8@   2UijKkla2Right Par+_b¯tRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers_ ;RK+_PiA@` `  ` ` ` a3Right Par+_b¯tRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers_ ;RK+_PjJ` ` @  ` `  a4Right Par+_b¯tRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers_ ;RK+_PkS` `  @  a5Right Par+_b¯tRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers_ ;RK+_Pl\` `  @hh# hhh 2mnGoF[a6Right Par+_b¯tRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers_ ;RK+_Pme` `  hh#@( hh# a7Right Par+_b¯tRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers_ ;RK+_Pnn` `  hh#(@- ( a8Right Par+_b¯tRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers_ ;RK+_Pow` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp 2 X*  @-  -@ bBefore the  FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION  X*2Washington, D.C. 20554 ă   X*In the Matter of hhCq) ` `  hhCq)  Xv*FederalState Joint Board onhhCq)ppCC Docket No. 9645  X_*Universal Service hhCq) ` `  hhCq)  X *% COMMENTS OF CINCINNATI BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY  \  LxCincinnati Bell Telephone Company ("CBT"), an independent, mid-size local exchange   carrier ("LEC"), submits these comments in response to the Commission's March 8, 1996   pNotice of Proposed Rulemaking and Order Establishing Joint Board ("NPRM") in the above X4*  captioned proceeding.49S X*ԍXIn the Matter of FederalState Joint Board on Universal Service, CC Docket No. 96 X*45, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, released March 8, 1996.(# The NPRM was released as part of the Commission's effort to   implement the universal service provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (the  X*"Act").vb9S X*ԍXTelecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104104, 254.(#v  X* I.  SUMMARY   LThe preservation of universal service and the development of local exchange   competition are not necessarily compatible goals. Such compatibility is dependent upon   reforming current monopolyera rate structures and subsidies that resulted from public policy   initiatives designed to support universal service. The implicit internal subsidies and explicit   Bsubsidies that were successful in fostering universal service in a monopoly environment are no   longer appropriate in a competitive environment. In fact, competition destroys the traditional""0*0*0*<""   <support mechanisms. For further discussion on how the introduction of local exchange   *competition will impact current mechanisms to support universal service and the economic   implications thereof, see "Competition and the Maintenance of Universal Service" by Richard D. Emmerson, Ph.D., a copy of which is attached to these comments as Appendix A.  LThe Emmerson paper embraces several of the principles which the Commission has   Pestablished as the focus for designing a funding mechanism that will preserve universal service   Tin a competitive environment. It also addresses a number of options (e.g., rate rebalancing,   Bdeaveraging, etc.) which must be addressed in concert to achieve the preservation of universal service in a competitive environment.  L`A basic premise underlying universal service is that at least one service provider is   obligated to provide service to customers who are highcost and not financially attractive. This   Nis to insure that customers who are in both highcost and rural areas are afforded the   Popportunity to connect to the network and obtain at reasonable rates those telecommunications   Pservices which are convenient, necessary, and essential to education, public health, and safety.   Once a truly competitive market is established, the Commission should allow market forces to determine what services should be made available and at what price.  X * LMany states, when addressing issues related to local competition, have also addressed  X*  universal service issues, as well as Carrier of Last Resort ("COLR") obligations.I_{3 Xk!*ԍXSee, In the Matter of the Commission's Investigation Relative to the  XT"*Establishment of Local Exchange Competition and Other Competitive Issues,  X=#*PUCO Case No. 95845TPCOI. See also, Kentucky Admin. Case No. 355. In its April 8, 1996 comments filed in this proceeding, the Kentucky Public Service Commission indicates that it will be entering an order during the summer of 1996 addressing issues relating to local competition including the preservation of universal service. I CBT has"0*(("  X*  consistently asserted that neither this Commission nor the various state commissions can  X*  individually resolve all universal service issues through disjointed processes.~{3 XK*ԍXSee CBT Comments, CC Docket No. 80286 (filed October 9, 1995), p. 1. ~ The importance   Tof universal service issues is such that a joint effort of state and federal agencies is not only appropriate, but necessary.  LWhile CBT generally supports most of the principles which the Commission has  X *  established as the focus for policies designed to preserve and advance universal service, CBT   urges the Commission to allow the states to continue to target support for lowincome  X *  consumers as state authorities are closer to this issue. Ohio and Kentucky already have  X*  *programs in placefvy{3 X* LЍXFor example, Ohio currently has a variety of programs designed specifically to deal  Lwith problems faced by lowincome customers in maintaining local telephone service.  LThese Lifeline and Linkup programs are as follows: Telephone Service Assistance,  LDService Connection Assistance. CBT specifically describes the operation of these  LRprograms in its Comments submitted on September 27, 1995 in the Commission's Subscribership docket, CC Docket No. 95115.(#f, which would only be duplicated by any Commission action focused on support to specific population groups, rather than highcost areas.  X4* LCBT does not support high cost credits for any alternative provider of local service.   If competition in the provision of basic local telephone service is to emerge and prosper in an   area, it must do so on its own merits, not on the basis of whether a new market entrant   Pqualifies for or receives a subsidy. The Commission should provide highcost support in areas  X|*  where more than one local service provider cannot be economically justified, but only until such time as competition emerges or subscribership levels reach an appropriate targeted level.  X * " 0*(("Ԍ" X* "II.X  SUPPORT FOR RURAL, INSULAR, AND HIGHCOST AREAS AND  X*LOWINCOME CONSUMERS.   X* " X*  B" A.` ` Core Services to be Supported Through Universal Service  X*Funding x` " Xv* L"The Commission has requested comment on which specific telecommunications services   should be included, for rural, insular, and high cost areas, in a list of services which would  X *  receive universal service support.A {3 X *ԍNPRM at  15.A CBT asserts that only the following services should be considered core services for purposes of federal universal service support:     X *a.` ` Single party voice grade access line;  X*b.` ` Touch Tone Dialing;  Xy*c.` ` Blocking for Caller ID;  Xb*d.` ` Access to Telecommunications Relay Service;  XK*e.` ` Access to operators and directory assistance;  X4*f.` ` Access to emergency services (E911)  X*g.` ` Access to all available interexchange carriers;  X*h.` ` A white page listing and directory; and  X*i.` ` Network repair service  X*  LWhile federal universal service support should be limited to the abovereferenced core   services, CBT submits that LECs must also be permitted to recover the costs associated with   their Carrier of Last Resort ("COLR") obligations at the state level. The costs associated with   xbeing the COLR include: (1) the costs of providing local exchange service on demand   throughout an entire service territory where such demand arrives randomly from the public; (2)   Bthe costs of meeting this demand in accordance with minimum service levels; and (3) liabilities   resulting from having had the obligation to meet these COLR obligations in a regulated"#y0*((""   Tmonopoly environment (e.g., underdepreciated capital, unamortized cost deferrals, stranded   investment, standby capacity, etc.). In addition, rate rebalancing and deaveraging, which are   necessary elements in any universal service support structure, should also be addressed at the   state level. To compete effectively, LECs must have the ability to adjust rates to reflect cost   distinctions. Allowing LECs to rebalance and deaverage their rate structures will minimize the   ^need for subsidies and promote the development of a truly competitive environment by sending  X *accurate economic signals to the marketplace. " X*  *" B .` ` Universal Service Support for Core Services Should be Available to All Lines In HighCost Areas.x`  Xb*   LThe Commission asks whether support for rural, insular and highcost areas should be   limited to residential users or residential and singleline business users, or whether such support   should be available to both business and residential customers in these areas. CBT urges the   4Commission to make universal service support available for all users in highcost areas as long   pas the rates for lines are above cost. To deny support to certain users or types of lines may conceivably force a service provider to sell a service at a level below cost.  X7* " X *  " C.` ` Proposals for Calculating the Level of Universal Service  X*Support x` " X * LH"CBT is concerned about the continued use of the existing Part 36 jurisdictional   separations rules in an increasingly competitive environment, especially as it may affect LECs in areas where provision of local telephone service is competitive.  X>&*">&0*((%"Ԍ" X*   "` ` 1. Proposals to Revise Dial Equipment Weighting Rules   X*  LThe Commission's jurisdictional separation rules provide for an allocation of investment   for local switching equipment which is based on relative dial equipment minutes of use.   NWhere a LEC study area has no more than 50,000 access lines, the interstate DEM is   t"weighted" to provide that a higher percentage of local switching costs is allocated to the   &interstate jurisdiction. This regulatory mechanism allows these local costs to be transferred to and recovered from interstate ratepayers.  LAs the Commission states in its NPRM, DEM weighting assists those LECs who  Xy*  provide service in study areas with fewer than 50,000 access lines, "on the theory that small   ftelephone companies have higher switching costs because they cannot take advantage of  X*  Teconomies of scale."A{3 X*ԍNPRM at  29.A CBT serves considerably more than 50,000 access lines. Therefore,   Twhile CBT does not benefit from these weighting rules, and likely will not benefit under any   revision of the rules, CBT is concerned about the continued application of this mechanism in   tan increasingly competitive environment, especially as it may affect LECs in areas where provision of local telephone service is competitive.  LAs currently constituted, the use of DEM weighting to subsidize service offered by   providers with fewer than 50,000 access lines could inappropriately benefit a new entrant into   the local telephone market. For example, if a new provider of local telephone service entered   Xthe market in the service area currently served by CBT, it is likely that such a competing   carrier would have less than 50,000 access lines as it began to offer new service. Thus, the"#y0*((""   znew entrant into the market would arguably be able to employ DEM weighting to recover costs  X*for the provision of local service in a manner unavailable to its competition.    LIf the Commission concludes that DEM weighting is necessary, then it should only be   available to existing small LECs for services provided within their existing service territories.   New entrants make a business decision to enter a competitive market with intentions of   4growing quickly, vastly different from the circumstances most small LECs find themselves in.   pThe Commission must not allow the DEM weighting rules to be applied to new entrants in a   fmarketplace, nor permit a new entrant to receive a benefit under these rules which is not   available to its competitors. The Commission must issue regulatory decisions concerning DEM   weighting with an eye toward the emerging competitive environment for local telephone service   to insure that the rules which the Commission adopts do not provide an undeserved and unearned competitive advantage to new entrants in the local telephone service market. " X*  ^"` ` 2. Revisions to Universal Service Support Mechanism  " X* L" In this NPRM, the Commission seeks to further clarify and define universal service   support, as well as examine a variety of regulatory mechanisms to minimize and more   lappropriately target the subsidy historically represented by the Universal Service Fund ("USF").   CBT submits that the universal service proposals on which the Commission has requested   comment should be focused only on providing assistance to those companies which serve high  cost areas. The inclusion of any provision for the funding of service for low income   subscribers, or for providing assistance to those who would otherwise not be able to remain   on the network, should be considered by state commissions and local authorities, who are in the best position to develop responses tailored to specific populations."#'0*((%"Ԍ LCBT does not support the use of highcost credits as a means of distributing highcost   assistance. Such a process would be burdensome to administer and would hinder the   bdevelopment of efficient competition. Such subsidies should not exist in a truly competitive   .environment, particularly where it is possible for customers to change telephone service  XH*providers several times over a short period of time.  LIn a competitive marketplace, the cost studies necessary to support prices are   \unnecessary. However, if cost studies are deemed necessary, CBT concurs with the   |Commission that the selection of an appropriate geographical area to determine the   Tdisaggregation of costs is critical. In order to insure the proper and accurate distribution of   4highcost assistance, costs must be targeted to an area smaller than a study area. CBT asserts   that allowing the calculation of loop costs for narrowly defined areas is in accord with the   Commission's policy of competitive and technological neutrality, in that it assures an accurate  X*distribution of highcost assistance. q  L@The Commission has requested further discussion on the issue of targeting highcost  X|*  assistance on the basis of subscriber characteristics.A|{3 X*ԍNPRM at  30.A USF assistance has historically been used   as a method to subsidize loop costs in highcost areas, not as a mechanism to provide subsidies  X *  to lowincome customers.A y{3 XJ!*ԍNPRM at  30.A While the overall goal of these two mechanisms may be similar,  X*  i.e., insuring a broader provision of service to the population, the specific methods employed   ffor achieving this goal are very different when the focus is cost support, rather than low income subsidy.""* 0*((!"Ԍ LHCBT asserts that universal service assistance should be limited to that which is   Jnecessary to provide assistance to incumbent LECs providing service in high cost areas.   pMechanisms for assistance to low income consumers are best determined by state and local   ^governments and a broad based federal policy will not be able to deal accurately and succinctly with any regional or local concerns.  LCBT submits that loop costs are not static and are influenced by subscriber density, as   well as the proximity to the serving wire center. This is not recognized by some of the proxy   models being proposed. For example, the socalled "Benchmark Cost Model" makes many   Psimplifying assumptions and does not capture the unique cost characteristics of each company   8and can grossly miscalculate the cost for a particular company. Without specific company   inputs, CBT does not believe that a proxy methodology adequately represents a company's loop costs.  LjFor example, a significant factor impacting loop costs is the price paid to vendors for   cable and equipment. Small and medium size companies have less negotiating power with   vendors and are likely to pay higher prices for cable and equipment than larger companies.   BAs a result, there may be price differences between small or medium size telephone companies   ^and large, nontraditional telephone service providers. Another factor strongly influencing loop   costs is the cost of labor. Labor costs are highly company specific, and cannot be simulated   by a broad national average proxy. The choice of facilities is strongly influenced by existing  X"*  plant (e.g., whether facilities are underground or aerial) and construction constraints (e.g.,   Bzoning restrictions in a community which restricts aerial plant) and a proxy model must reflect such local factors.":& 0*(($"Ԍ L`In recent years, significant changes in technology have changed the economics of   facilities deployment decisions. These changes include the use of loop electronics and the use   Bof fiber cable in the loop plant. The Commission must recognize that technology has been and   will continue to be very dynamic. Therefore, any proxy method must have provisions for   adapting to these changes. If it does not, it will quickly become useless and the Commission  X *will be forced to reexamine this issue in the near future.  X *  X *  D.` ` Transition Issues  LCBT does not endorse any transitional or interim plans. If competition and universal   service are to coexist, then these concepts must be implemented simultaneously. Accordingly,   jthe existing USF should continue to be funded as is until a comprehensive plan which  X*addresses all universal service considerations in a competitive environment is developed. (#(#  X* E.` ` Eligibility for Universal Service Support x`  LThe Commission also seeks comment on the means to ensure that only eligible carriers  XN*  receive the appropriate amount of universal service support.A N{3 X*ԍNPRM at  41.A CBT does not support, and urges   the Commission to reject, any proposal which calls for the distribution of universal service   ~support to new market entrants. Competition must be allowed to emerge on its own merits, not on the basis of whether a new entrant qualifies for a subsidy. "h$ y 0*((#"Ԍ L@As CBT stated in its summary, the basic premise which underlies universal service is   that at least one service provider is obligated to provide service to customers who are in both   Xhighcost and rural areas, thereby affording these customers the ability to connect to the   4network and obtain those services which are convenient, necessary and essential to education,   public health and safety at a reasonable rate. The incumbent LECs have made investments in   their networks to meet the Carrier of Last Resort ( COLR) obligation. They did so based on   Pthe expectation that they would have a reasonable opportunity to recover the entire cost of that investment.  L$New market entrants should not be eligible to receive universal service support since   they have the ability/opportunity to enter and exit markets based on their assessment of risks   Xand ability to generate a profit. They are free to select the form of provisioning for those   services they wish to offer and this management decision to enter a market should not be   pallowed to be premised on the expectation that the new entrant will receive universal service   ~support. Unlike LECs, new entrants do not have any of the obligations from past regulatory   decisions such as average pricing, implicit cross product subsidies, and depreciation rates which do not reflect a competitive environment.  L@CBT submits that incumbent LECs must be able to recover their stranded investment   &which has resulted from past regulatory decisions, especially those associated with COLR and   2universal service obligations. These obligations imposed investment requirements on   incumbent LECs to insure that service was provided to all customers, including highcost   customers, on demand. The stranded investment mechanism should be customerspecific so   that if a competitor in a market takes a customer away from the incumbent LEC, the LEC":& 0*(($" would be able to continue to recapture its investment.  X* III.SUPPORT FOR LOWINCOME CONSUMERS " Xv* L" The Commission has requested comment on whether any additional services should be   Fdesignated as ". . . additional services that would be specifically appropriate for low income  X *  Busers."A  {3 X *ԍNPRM at  50.A The Commission also seeks guidance as to what should be its overall obligations and  X *  responsibilities with regard to low income customers.A y{3 X*ԍNPRM at  50.A As CBT has previously stated, this   Commission should continue to permit the states to be the primary locus for decisions   regarding the targeting of support to low income customers. This will insure that these   subscribers receive adequate basic local service, in that states are in a more advantageous   position to discern their constituents' needs. Both Ohio and Kentucky have programs in place   which specifically address problems faced by low income customers in maintaining their local telephone service.  LIn Ohio, these services are the Telephone Service Assistance ( TSA) and the Service   XConnection Assistance ( SCA) programs. In Kentucky, the program is entitled LinkUp   Kentucky. The operations of these programs were fully described in the September 27, 1995  X *Comments submitted by CBT in this Commissions subscribership docket.  *{3 X"*ԍXCBT Comments, In the Matter of: Amendment of the Commissions Rules and Policies to Increase Subscribership and Usage of the Public Switched  X$*Network. CC Docket No. 95115. pp. 5 8.  "  0*(("Ԍ LThe Commission also seeks comment on where toll limitation services are available,   &should they be offered to low income customers either at no charge or at a discount. CBT has   poffered voluntary call blocking since 1990 as a tool to help control a customer's toll charges   ~and keep them on our network. 1+, 0+, and 0 calls are blocked with this feature while 800 and collect calls are permitted. This feature is utilized in certain cases prior to denying service.  LCBT does not believe that the Commission should mandate telephone service to include   toll blocking. For the Commission to order this without considering the specific situations faced   by LECs in providing service to their customers would be an extreme burden to LECs, in that   \they would be denied the flexibility needed to serve their customers in an increasingly   competitive marketplace. CBT believes that it is imperative that the Commission allow the   states and the companies who operate in those states the flexibility to design programs which best suit the needs of their customers.  X* IV.  SCHOOLS AND LIBRARIES  X|*A.` ` Goals and Principles  LCBT agrees that access to telecommunications services are important to schools,   zclassrooms, and libraries. However, CBT believes these issues should be addressed at the state   level, rather than by federal mandate. As part of CBT's alternative regulation plan in Ohio,   CBT has agreed to develop and implement a plan to promote telecommunicationsbased   educational applications. These applications include distance learning within the Clermont   County Ohio school system, as well as developing longrange telecommunications plans that   tconsider the telecommunications needs of the statechartered public and private primary,":& 0*(($"    X secondary, and postsecondary schools within the CBT operating territory. CBT has also   Tagreed to work with the Cincinnati Public Schools to determine the technology needs of the   school system and to address the unique and specific needs of the school system. These needs   will potentially include, but not be limited to ISDN, the application of Centrex, data networking and distance learning applications. " X *  " B.` ` What Services for Schools and Libraries Should Receive Universal Service Funding Assistance?x` " X * L" CBT believes that only those previously outlined core services should be supported by   a universal service support mechanism. However, if the Commission should establish that   other services are to be provided at a discount to schools and libraries, then the LEC must be eligible to receive universal service support for providing those services.  X* V.ADMINISTRATION OF SUPPORT MECHANISMS  X* A.` ` Who Should Contribute?  Xe* L The NPRM asks commenters to identify which service providers fall within the scope   of the term "telecommunications carriers that provide interstate telecommunications services"   ^for purposes of contributing to universal service support. CBT believes the abovequoted term   ~should include incumbent LECs, new local service providers, IXCs, CAPs, cellular and PCS providers, resellers and other future providers of service which have yet to be defined.  LCBT urges the Commission not to permit an exemption for those carriers whose  XQ%*  contribution is de minimis. CBT submits that all telecommunications carriers should be   required to contribute at some appropriate level consistent with the policy goal to support universal service."( ,**'"Ԍ  X* B.` ` How Should Contributions Be Assessed?  L@CBT supports the Commission's proposal which would base the level of contribution   .to universal service mechanisms on gross interstate revenues. CBT submits that such a   methodology would be equitable and nondiscriminatory, as required by Section 254(d) of the Act, and relatively easy to administer.  X *  X*C.` ` Who Should Administer the Funding Mechanism?  Xb* L CBT agrees that universal service support should be administered in an efficient, fair  X4*  and competitively neutral manner.B4 X*ԍNPRM at  128.B CBT urges the Commission to employ an independent   Pthird party to administer the funding mechanism. In selecting an appropriate administrator, the   experience, competency, and credentials of the third party in managing large funds should be considered by the Commission. ":&y,**h%"Ԍ X* VI.CONCLUSION   LCBT respectfully requests the Commission to consider these comments as it develops   possible revisions to universal service funding mechanisms in light of the enactment of the   Telecommunications Act of 1996. As the Commission determines which service providers will   be eligible to receive universal service assistance and what core services will be supported,   CBT urges the Commission to insure that its policy choices do not impose additional burdens on incumbent carriers and provide competitive advantages to new entrants. ` `  hhCqRespectfully submitted,   ` `  hhCqFROST & JACOBS  XK*` `  hhCq pp  )xxW (#(#` `  hhCqpp  )xxW (#(#` `  hhC By_______________________________ ` `  hhCqThomas E. Taylor ` `  hhCqJack B. Harrison ` `  hhCq2500 PNC Center ` `  hhCq201 East Fifth Street ` `  hhCqCincinnati, Ohio 45202 ` `  hhCq(513) 6516800  Xe* ` `  hhCqAttorneys for Cincinnati Bell ` `  hhCqTelephone Company Dated: April 12, 1996  WB~  WB~0293699.05