December 29, 1997 DISSE NTING STATEMENT OF COMMI SSIONER HAROLD FURCHTGOTT-ROTH Re: Fourth Order on Reconsideration, Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service (CC Docket No. 96-45), Report and Order, Access Charge Reform, Price Cap Review for Local Exchange Carriers, Transport Rate Structure and Pricing, End User Common Line Charge (CC Docket Nos. 96-262, 94-1, 91-213, 95-72). The universal service provisions in Section 254 of the Communications Act embody the hopes of many Americans. The Section should be precisely implemented within the letter of the law, and fully implemented according to all -- not just part -- of its language. The Commission has expended significant resources on universal service and has issued three prior orders on universal service. Despite these efforts, considerable doubts remain about whether the Commission's universal service programs fully meet all of the requirements of Section 254 and about whether the universal service programs are entirely within the letter of the law. I mentioned but a few of these concerns in my dissent of December 17, 1997. The Order adopted by the majority today is entitled a "reconsideration" Order. The Commission has undoubtedly received many requests for reconsideration of fundamental issues related to Section 254. The Commission should have taken this opportunity to review fully the implementation of Section 254 and whether the FCC's previous interpretations are consistent with the plain language of the Act. (I trust that the Commission soon will have another opportunity to do so.) Few of these fundamental issues, however, have found their way into today's Order. Instead, the existing structure of universal service is presumed perfect and minor modifications are suggested here and there. I cannot endorse efforts to implement slight modifications to programs with which I have more fundamental questions that have not been addressed. Some of the small recommendations adopted in this Order move the Commission in the right direction; other recommendations cannot even make that claim. For example, one of the provisions adopted in today's Order denies the State of Florida's petition to use, if only for the first year, the form that it has already created and distributed to apply for universal service discounts under the schools and libraries support program. Despite the fact that Section 254 anticipates a prominent state role in all aspects of universal service and that the Commission's own rules require a state role in the certification process, the Order rejects Florida's petition. This is an odd denial given that the universal service form required by the FCC is an extraordinary document; long and cumbersome, it is more reminiscent of an Internal Revenue Service form than an FCC form. I have attached copies of the FCC forms required for schools and libraries as well as the FCC forms required for rural health care providers so that readers may fully appreciate the invasiveness and complexity of these forms. On what plausible basis in Section 254 does the federal government have the authority to collect information on the past and present inventories of computer equipment and software? To what earthly end will the federal government put this information when it is collected? Why could the State of Florida not use its own form, even for the first year? Sadly, many such questions are not addressed or satisfactorily answered in the current Order. And the denial of the State of Florida is but one small item in the lengthy Order adopted today. It would have been more appropriate to have had a full opportunity to review even these minor modifications, but such a searching review has been ruled out by the Commission's attempt to meet an arbitrary January 1, 1998, deadline. As everyone has agreed, however, this date is not statutorily required. As I have made clear on previous occasions, I see no need to begin implementing these programs to meet this arbitrarily selected date in the face of public hesitation and direct Congressional requests for delay. I believe that this Order is a lost opportunity to address some of the fundamental issues that have been raised about universal service. I fear that the Commission is headed in the wrong direction on universal service. It is with great regret that I dissent from the Fourth Order on Reconsideration, Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service (CC Docket No. 96-45), Report and Order, Access Charge Reform, Price Cap Review for Local Exchange Carriers, Transport Rate Structure and Pricing, End User Common Line Charge (CC Docket Nos. 96-262, 94-1, 91-213, 95-72).