STATEMENT OF 
COMMISSIONER MICHAEL J. COPPS, 
APPROVING IN PART, DISSENTING IN PART

Re:  	Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, Recommended Decision 

      This Decision is one of the most important that the Joint Board will consider this 
year.  As the Commission and the Joint Board move forward with other universal service 
proceedings during the coming months, including an examination of the contribution 
methodology, it is important that we develop a consensus on the definition of universal 
service and how to achieve Congress’ goals.  
      
      Universal service is a critical pillar of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.  
Congress clearly concluded that a core principle of federal telecommunications policy is 
that all Americans, no matter who they are or where they live, should have access to 
reasonably comparable services at reasonably comparable rates.  Congress also wisely 
anticipated that the definition of universal service would evolve and advance over time.  
      
      I want to thank my colleagues on the Joint Board for their frank discussions on 
this Recommended Decision.  The Decision is the product of much hard work by  
dedicated Joint Board members and equally dedicated staff.  Nevertheless, I am 
concerned that today’s Decision is not always forward-looking in its analysis.  For 
example, as discussed below, the Joint Board seemingly discounts the importance of 
access to broadband services and to the Internet.  In addition, the Joint Board seems 
overly constrained in its analysis by concerns about any increases to the fund or about the 
possibility that any change could disadvantage one industry sector or another.  I write 
separately to highlight a few principal areas in which I have significant concerns with the 
Decision.    
      
      Advanced Services
      
      I respectfully disagree with a fundamental premise of the majority in its 
discussion of advanced services.  The majority concludes that advanced services are not 
essential to education, public health, or public safety because “many such resources are 
readily accessible through alternative means, such as by voice telephone or dial-up 
connections to the Internet.”  By this same logic, maybe telephones should never have 
been deemed essential because we had the telegraph.  
      
      I believe that advanced services are essential.  Indeed, they are becoming more so 
with each passing day.  Already, broadband is a key component of our nation’s systems 
of education, commerce, employment, health, government and entertainment.  Congress 
recognized the importance of broadband access in the Telecommunications Act of 1996.  
Not only did Congress give the FCC and the state commissions the statutory mandate to 
advance the cause of bringing access to advanced telecommunications to each and every 
citizen of our country, but it also directed that one of the guiding principles of universal 
service is that “access to advanced telecommunications and information services should 
be provided in all regions of the Nation.”  There is no doubting, in my mind, that 
Congress looks forward to the advancement of advanced services all across our country.  
But this important objective will not be achieved without such technologies eventually 
being included as eligible for universal service support.  The majority’s seeming 
conclusion that market forces alone will accomplish this flies in the face of reality and is 
contrary to what many business leaders tell me.  The Joint Board does little to advance 
the broadband effort when it concludes that advanced services are not essential.
      
      I am also troubled by the conclusion that we cannot include broadband in the 
definition of universal service because some broadband providers do not also offer core 
telecommunications services.  This rationale could prevent us from ever supporting 
broadband.  The appropriate analysis should focus on the statutory directive to ensure that 
all consumers receive comparable services, not whether we should lower the standard so 
that more providers qualify.
      
      Although it may be true that broadband is not yet completely ripe for inclusion in 
the list of supported services, it is my firm belief that broadband will satisfy the statutory 
criteria in the near future.  In the meantime, universal service should not create barriers to 
broadband deployment.  I am pleased that the Joint Board does endorse the concept that 
universal service should support infrastructure capable of providing broadband services.  
Although there is more we should do to promote broadband, my hope is that affirming 
this commitment will encourage carriers to undertake necessary investment to modernize 
infrastructure in their communities.  In addition, I support launching a proceeding to 
examine steps we should take to promote the deployment of advanced services, and the 
role of universal service in that effort.  This should be a priority matter.
      
      As a final matter, I note with interest the Joint Board’s conclusion that, if the 
Commission were to adopt its tentative conclusions that broadband Internet access is an 
information service with a telecommunications component, then broadband Internet 
access could never be supported by universal service.  The law of unintended 
consequences can inflict terrible damage some times, and if this is an outcome of the 
Commission’s Wireline Broadband Notice, the damage could be irreparable.    
      
      Other Issues
      
      I am troubled by the Joint Board’s conclusion that the states carry the principal 
burden of ensuring that quality services are maintained.  Both the states and the 
Commission need to work together to confront the challenges of service quality in a 
changing marketplace.  Our objective is to bring the best communications system to all of 
our people.  Rural, insular, and low-income consumers have a right to services that are as 
reliable as those provided to other consumers.  The Commission must not abdicate its 
statutory responsibility to ensure that quality services are available at just, reasonable, 
and affordable rates.  
      
      I am also concerned that the Joint Board fails to take adequate account of the  
substantial impact of today’s Decision on the access of low-income consumers to 
telecommunications services.  For example, the Joint Board recognizes that low-income 
consumers in rural and tribal areas may be unable to access basic essential health, safety, 
and educational resources using the current list of supported services, but it does not take 
steps to address this problem.  I urge the Joint Board to consider these issues further in its 
proceeding on the low-income mechanisms.  

	Finally, although I supported inclusion of equal access in the list of supported 
services, I recognize that this issue is a close call as demonstrated by the lack of 
consensus in the Joint Board.  I look forward to reading the comments on this 
Recommended Decision and, in particular, a discussion of the impact on consumers of 
including or excluding equal access.  For example, if universal service is about 
connecting all Americans, is it the consumer or the carrier who decides on the services 
and the identity of the provider that the consumer can access through that connection?  In 
addition, some parties extol the benefits of wireless carriers offering consumers service 
packages that include bundles of any-distance minutes, but I look in vain for an 
explanation of how inclusion of equal access would preclude such plans.  As for the 
competition issues, some opponents of including equal access state that these issues are 
relevant to the discussion but are more properly addressed in a future, but as yet 
unlaunched, proceeding.  When the equal access issue is addressed by the Commission, I 
hope we will have the benefit of sufficient analysis on the competition issues to inform 
our decision-making.  

      Again, my gratitude goes out to all who worked so diligently to produce this 
document which now goes to the Commission.  There it will receive, I am confident, the 
careful attention and high priority it so clearly merits.