WPCcb 2'b ZB0`JHP LaserJet 3Si PCL in 244XN\  PXPX0Í ÍX0Í ÍҫXN\  PXP(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularXXN\  PXP\  `*Times New RomanTTXXN\  PXP\  `*Times New RomanTTXA\  PP\  `*Times New RomanTT]y6X@]@<6X9`("Courier NewTT]XN\  PXP\  `*Times New RomanTTXA\  PP\  `*Times New RomanTT]y6X@]@<6X9`("Courier NewTT]XN\  PXP\  `*Times New RomanTTXA\  P P\  `*Times New RomanTT]y6X@ ]@<6X9`("Courier NewTT]XN\  P XP\  `*Times New RomanTTXA\  P P\  `*Times New RomanTT]y6X@ ]@<6X9`("Courier NewTT]XN\  PXP\  `*Times New RomanTTXA\  PP\  `*Times New RomanTT]y6X@]@<6X9`("Courier NewTT]XN\  PXP\  `*Times New RomanTTXA\  PP\  `*Times New RomanTT]y6X@]@<6X9`("Courier NewTT]XN\  PXP\  `*Times New RomanTTXA\  PP\  `*Times New RomanTT]y6X@]@<6X9`("Courier NewTT]XN\  PXP\  `*Times New RomanTTXA\  PP\  `*Times New RomanTT]y6X@]@<6X9`("Courier NewTT]XN\  PXP\  `*Times New RomanTTXA\  PP\  `*Times New RomanTT]y6X@]@<6X9`("Courier NewTT]XN\  PXP\  `*Times New RomanTTXA\  PP\  `*Times New RomanTT]y6X@]@<6X9`("Courier NewTT]XN\  P XP\  `*Times New RomanTTXA\  P!P\  `*Times New RomanTT]y6X@"]@<6X9`("Courier NewTT]XN\  P#XP\  `*Times New RomanTTXA\  P$P\  `*Times New RomanTT]y6X@%]@<6X9`("Courier NewTT]XN\  P&XP\  `*Times New RomanTTXA\  P'P\  `*Times New RomanTT]y6X@(]@<6X9`("Courier NewTT]XN\  P)XP\  `*Times New RomanTTXA\  P*P\  `*Times New RomanTT]y6X@+]@<6X9`("Courier NewTT]XN\  P,XP\  `*Times New RomanTTXA\  P-P\  `*Times New RomanTT]y6X@.]@<6X9`("Courier NewTT]XN\  P/XP\  `*Times New RomanTTXA\  P0P\  `*Times New RomanTT]y6X@1]@<6X9`("Courier NewTT]XN\  P2XP\  `*Times New RomanTTXA\  P3P\  `*Times New RomanTT]y6X@4]@<6X9`("Courier NewTT]XN\  P5XP\  `*Times New RomanTTXA\  P6P\  `*Times New RomanTT]y6X@7]@<6X9`("Courier NewTT]XN\  P8XP\  `*Times New RomanTTXA\  P9P\  `*Times New RomanTT]y6X@:]@<6X9`("Courier NewTT]XN\  P;XP\  `*Times New RomanTTXA\  P<P\  `*Times New RomanTT]y6X@=]@<6X9`("Courier NewTT]XN\  P>XP\  `*Times New RomanTTXA\  P?P\  `*Times New RomanTT]y6X@@]@<6X9`("Courier NewTT]XN\  PAXP\  `*Times New RomanTTXA\  PBP\  `*Times New RomanTT]y6X@C]@<6X9`("Courier NewTT]XN\  PDXP\  `*Times New RomanTTXA\  PEP\  `*Times New RomanTT]y6X@F]@<6X9`("Courier NewTT]XN\  PGXP\  `*Times New RomanTTXA\  PHP\  `*Times New RomanTT]y6X@I]@<6X9`("Courier NewTT]XN\  PJXP\  `*Times New RomanTTXA\  PKP\  `*Times New RomanTT]y6X@L]@<6X9`("Courier NewTT]XN\  PMXP\  `*Times New RomanTTXA\  PNP\  `*Times New RomanTT]y6X@O]@<6X9`("Courier NewTT]XN\  PPXP\  `*Times New RomanTTXA\  PQP\  `*Times New RomanTT]y6X@R]@<6X9`("Courier NewTT]XN\  PSXP\  `*Times New RomanTTXA\  PTP\  `*Times New RomanTT]y6X@U]@<6X9`("Courier NewTT]XN\  PVXP\  `*Times New RomanTTXA\  PWP\  `*Times New RomanTT]y6X@X]@<6X9`("Courier NewTT]XN\  PYXP\  `*Times New RomanTTXA\  PZP\  `*Times New RomanTT]y6X@[]@<6X9`("Courier NewTT]XN\  P\XP\  `*Times New RomanTTXA\  P]P\  `*Times New RomanTT]y6X@^]@<6X9`("Courier NewTT]XN\  P_XP\  `*Times New RomanTTXA\  P`P\  `*Times New RomanTT]y6X@a]@<6X9`("Courier NewTT]XN\  PbXP\  `*Times New RomanTTXA\  PcP\  `*Times New RomanTT]y6X@d]@<6X9`("Courier NewTT]XN\  PeXP\  `*Times New RomanTTXA\  PfP\  `*Times New RomanTT]y6X@g]@<6X9`("Courier NewTT]XN\  PhXP\  `*Times New RomanTTXA\  PiP\  `*Times New RomanTT]y6X@j]@<6X9`("Courier NewTT]XN\  PkXP\  `*Times New RomanTTXA\  PlP\  `*Times New RomanTT]y6X@m]@<6X9`("Courier NewTT]XN\  PnXP\  `*Times New RomanTTXA\  PoP\  `*Times New RomanTT]y6X@p]@<6X9`("Courier NewTT]XN\  PqXP\  `*Times New RomanTTXA\  PrP\  `*Times New RomanTT]y6X@s]@<6X9`("Courier NewTT]XN\  PtXP\  `*Times New RomanTTXA\  PuP\  `*Times New RomanTT]y6X@v]@<6X9`("Courier NewTT]XN\  PwXP\  `*Times New RomanTTXA\  PxP\  `*Times New RomanTT]y6X@y]@<6X9`("Courier NewTT]XN\  PzXP\  `*Times New RomanTTXA\  P{P\  `*Times New RomanTT]y6X@|]@<6X9`("Courier NewTT]XN\  P}XP\  `*Times New RomanTTXA\  P~P\  `*Times New RomanTT]y6X@]@<6X9`("Courier NewTT]XN\  PXP\  `*Times New RomanTTXA\  PP\  `*Times New RomanTT]y6X@]@<6X9`("Courier NewTT]XN\  PXP\  `*Times New RomanTTXA\  PP\  `*Times New RomanTT]y6X@]@<6X9`("Courier NewTT]XN\  PXP\  `*Times New RomanTTXA\  PP\  `*Times New RomanTT]y6X@]@<6X9`("Courier NewTT]XN\  PXP\  `*Times New RomanTTXA\  PP\  `*Times New RomanTT]y6X@]@<6X9`("Courier NewTT]XN\  PXP\  `*Times New RomanTTXA\  PP\  `*Times New RomanTT]y6X@]@<6X9`("Courier NewTT]]y6X@]@<6X9`("Courier NewTT]XN\  PXP(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX2Ybab3|x#XN\  PXP# April 10, 1998 DISSENTING STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER HAROLD FURCHTGOTTROTH  Re: FederalState Joint Board on Universal Service, Report to Congress, CC Docket 9645.  Introduction  The majority has worked hard to make this report a success. Comments have been received from the public. En banc hearings have been held. Many staff members have invested countless hours in preparing this report. Everyone involved has had the best of intentions. I wish that there were a way that I could vote with the majority on this report. Efforts and intentions are commendable. They were also commendable in the May 1997 order on universal service. But efforts and intentions alone are not sufficient to lead to a good order or a good report on universal service. Priorities matter. Rural, highcost universal service is not just one of many objectives of Section 254; it is the highest priority. Rural, highcost universal service issues should not be resolved and implemented in some dim and distant future after all other universal service issues have been resolved; rural, highcost universal service issues should be resolved and implemented first. Rural, highcost universal service should not be viewed as the residual after enormous amounts for other federal universal service obligations have been promised; rural, highcost universal service should receive the lion's share of any increase in the federal universal service fund. New federal universal service policy should not discard prior programs through a revolutionary process; new federal universal service programs should develop through a careful evolutionary process. Federal universal service programs should not be funded by unlimited, hidden taxes and fees, negotiated behind closed doors, that harm all consumers of telecommunications services through ever increasing prices; federal universal service programs must be funded by prudent mechanisms that allow for lower, and consequently more affordable, telecommunications rates for all Americans. Federal universal service programs should not stifle innovation and competition; they must encourage them. Federal universal service programs should not be based on creative and expansive readings of the law; they should be based on narrow readings of the law. Federal universal service programs should not ignore Congressional intent; they must reflect it. For these and other reasons explained below, I must reluctantly and respectfully dissent from the majority opinion today.    Congressional Intent Regarding Federal Universal Service Programs  For many years, a universal service funding mechanism, based on federal collection of fees from interstate service revenues, has defrayed the costs of service in rural, highcost areas. It has been a system of subsidies with neither great efficiencies nor great excesses. It has evolved with little fanfare or controversy. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 placed in statute what had largely evolved by regulation. Section 254 is an evolution of preexisting programs, not a revolution that endangers those programs to create entirely new ones. The clear emphasis of Section 254 is to preserve and enhance universal service in rural, highcost areas of the country. There are other goals of Section 254, but it is difficult to read Section 254 in its entirety and understand how a federal universal service fund program could have as its primary emphasis anything other than rural, highcost support; and it is even more difficult to understand how any portion of this section could proceed piecemeal before the rural, highcosts issues are resolved and in a fashion that jeopardizes support for rural, highcost areas. And it is still further difficult to read Section 254 to lead to funding mechanisms that make telecommunications services less affordable to all Americans on the pretext of supporting nontelecommunications plant, equipment, and peripheral services. Even a few conversations with Members and staff reveal that Congress intended primarily to make telecommunications services more not less affordable through support of rural, highcost areas under Section 254; many conversations make the point more forcefully. Somewhere between Capitol Hill and 1919 M Street, N.W., the intention of Congress seems to have been lost. Last May, the Commission issued an order on universal service that was more revolutionary than evolutionary. Much thought and care went into this revolutionary order; it was intellectually sophisticated and established novel interpretations of the law and Commission authority; but, in the process, it seems to have inadvertently lost sight of both the intent and the letter of the law.  The failure of the Commission on universal service was not lost on Congress; it decided to give the FCC a second chance to redeem itself. Congress requested a report from the FCC not because Congress was pleased with the earlier universal decision; Congress requested the report precisely because it was displeased. The report that the Commission submits to Congress is a missed opportunity. We could correct past mistakes, but we do not. We could affirm a commitment to Congressional intent, but we do not. Senator Dorgan eloquently suggested that, if the FCC has made a mistake, it should now make a "Uturn."$#XN\  PXP##A\  PP#эX` hp x f!%'0*,.8135@8:XP##A\  P?P#эX` hp x f!%'0*,.8135@8: