BEFORE THE WASHINGTON UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION In the Matter of Determining Costs ) Docket No. UT-980311(r) for Universal Service ) ) COMMENTS OF SHARED ) COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES, INC. ) Pursuant to the Commission's Notice of Proceeding, Opportunity to File Rulemaking Comments (June 8, 1998), Shared Communications Services, Inc. ("SCS"), provides the following comments in response to Commission questions concerning Eligible Telecommunications Carriers ("ETCs"). SCS provides shared telecommunications services to residential customers in Washington. SCS seeks to ensure that the universal service fund ("USF") established by the Commission is competitively neutral in both its funding and distribution to ETCs. SCS urges the Commission to establish ETC eligibility requirements and responsibilities in this rulemaking that allows all service providers -- including companies like SCS that provide local service in competition with the incumbent local exchange carriers ("ILECs") -- an equal opportunity to participate in the USF as an ETC. SCS provides specific responses below to the questions posed by the Commission on this subject area. 20. What process should be used to designate ETCs? Should it be by petition? By some other process? ETCs should be designated pursuant to a petition filed by the carrier seeking to be designated as an ETC. The petition should include a definition of the service area in which the carrier seeks ETC status and a demonstration that the carrier satisfies the Commission's requirements. The Commission should be required to grant or deny that petition within 30 days after it is filed. 21. What criteria should apply to the designation of ETCs? The criteria used to designate ETCs should be as broad as possible to allow maximum participation of both ILECs and competitive providers in the USF. The carrier must satisfy the requirements in 47 U.S.C. § 214(e)(1) and must be financially, technically, and managerially competent to provide basic telecommunications service as defined by the Commission, as well as any other services the company offers. Beyond these general criteria, the Commission should impose no other prerequisites or limitations on a carrier's eligibility for designation as an ETC. 22. At what geographic level (exchange, wire center, census block group or other) should ETCs be designated? The geographic level at which an ETC should be designated should be the service area defined by the ETC and approved by the Commission. ILECs define their service areas by exchanges and wire centers, which may or may not be coextensive with the service territory of competing providers. Competitors should not be required to provide service throughout the service area defined by the incumbent provider as a prerequisite to ETC eligibility. The ETC, therefore, should be designated according to the geographic area in which it offers service, as long as that service area satisfies the Commission's requirements for an area entitled to USF support. 23. Should a bidding process be utilized to select ETCs? If yes, describe in detail how such a process would work. All requesting telecommunications carriers that satisfy the Commission's requirements for designation as an ETC should be granted that status, regardless of the existence of other ETCs serving that same geographic area. See 47 U.S.C. § 214(e)(2). To the extent that this question refers to circumstances in which no carrier is willing to provide service in a particular geographic area, SCS does not have a proposal on that issue at this time. 24. What facilities, if any, should an ETC be required to self-provide? An ETC should not be required to self-provide any particular facilities. The Act expressly authorizes provision of local service as an ETC "either using its own facilities or a combination of its own facilities and resale of another carrier's services (including the services offered by another eligible telecommunications carrier) . . . ." 47 U.S.C. § 214(e)(1)(A). The Commission, therefore, should avoid any eligibility or compliance requirements for ETCs that preclude any combination of a carrier's own facilities and resold services to serve the designated geographic area. 25. Should the Commission adopt ETC basic service advertising guidelines that differ from the federal guidelines? The Commission should adopt guidelines that are consistent with federal guidelines to the extent reasonably possible to minimize the administrative and compliance burdens on companies that provide service in multiple states. Beyond that general position, SCS does not have a proposal on this specific issue at this time. 26. For what service areas can the provision of support payments be reasonably administered? See response to question 22. 27. How should the USF be funded? What is an "equitable" basis for all telecommunications providers and services to contribute to the USF? SCS does not have a proposal on this issue at this time. 28. What telecommunications carriers must contribute to the USF? All telecommunications carriers that make use of the local public switched telecommunications network ("PSTN") should be required to contribute to the USF in direct, nondiscriminatory, and competitively neutral proportion to their use of that network in providing service to their customers. Similarly, all telecommunications carriers that provide local service should be eligible for designation as an ETC and to draw from the fund on a nondiscriminatory and competitively neutral basis. 29. How often should USF contributions be collected? SCS does not have a proposal on this issue at this time. 30. How should USF contributions be recovered by a carrier that also makes payments to the fund? USF contributions should be recovered by all carriers that are eligible for such contributions on a nondiscriminatory and competitively neutral basis, regardless of the fact that particular carriers are also required to make payments to the fund. The recovery of USF contributions and payments into the fund are separate functions and should be maintained as separate functions. The fund administrator, not the participating carriers, should be responsible for ensuring both that carriers timely remit their required payments to the fund and that eligible carriers timely recover the contributions from the fund to which they are entitled. SCS appreciates the opportunity to provide these comments to the Commission and will continue to participate in this proceeding. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this _____ day of June, 1998. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP Attorneys for Shared Communications Services, Inc. By Gregory J. Kopta WSBA No. 20519 Pamela Ballard Regulatory Manager Shared Communications Services, Inc. 810 SE Belmont Portland, OR 97214