October 29, 1998

Ms. Carole J. Washburn
Executive Secretary
Washington Utilities and 
   Transportation Commission
1300 S. Evergreen Park Drive S. W.
P. O. Box 47250
Olympia, Washington  98504-7250

Attention: Bob Shirley

 Re: UT-980311(r) - Second DRAFT Universal Service Rules

Dear Ms. Washburn:

Enclosed our U S WEST’s comments on the Commission Staff’s Second Draft 
Universal Service Rules.  I can be reached at 206-345-4726 or via e-mail at 
tjensen@uswest.com with any questions you may have.

Very truly yours,


Theresa Jensen

BEFORE THE WASHINGTON UTILTIES AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION




In the Matter of Request for  )  Comments of U S WEST
Comments on 2nd Draft   )
Universal Service Rules  )
______________________________)


 U S WEST submits these comments pursuant to the Commission’s Notice of Request 
for Comment on 2nd Draft Universal Service Rules dated October 21, 1998.  As 
previously stated, the Commission’s proposed rules should be consistent both 
with the Communications Act of 1934, Chapter 652, 48 Stat. 1064 (1934)(codified 
as amended at 47 U.S.C. § 151 et seq.) as amended by the Telecommunications Act 
of 1996,  P.L. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56 (1996) (hereinafter collectively referred 
to as the “Act”) and the recently adopted Washington Universal Service Fund 
legislation, Chapter 337, Laws of 1998 (hereafter “Chapter 337”).
 The 2nd Draft proposed rules continue to not comply with either.  
Specifically, the proposed rules: 
 
do not provide predictable support
are not competitively neutral 
unduly discriminate against registered intrastate telecommunications carriers
do not create an explicit funding source but rather continue implicit subsidies
do not contain the provisions necessary for the preservation and advancement of 
universal telecommunications service 
do support service beyond the basic services defined in section 1(7) of the 
Washington Telecommunications Act (Chapter 337)

 The Commission should direct its staff to significantly modify these proposed 
rules and prepare by the deadline mandated by of the Washington 
Telecommunications Act (Chapter 337), a proposal for the state Legislature to 
consider that promotes investment in and the continued availability of 
affordable basic telephone service.  
 U S WEST once again respectfully requests that the Commission direct its staff 
to expand the proposed rule section - WAC 480-123-3XX  Eligible 
Telecommunications Carriers (ETC) to specifically include rule provisions that 
address the outstanding issue from Docket UT-961638, concerning the obligation 
of local exchange carriers who are not designated as the ETC for areas they 
currently serve, as well as for unserved areas. The Commission agreed at the 
September 30, 1998 Open Meeting, that this issue must be resolved.  
 U S WEST appreciates the Commission’s invitation to comment on these important 
rules which are intended to maintain and advance affordable, universal basic 
telecommunications service in the State of Washington.  To the extent U S WEST 
has not commented on rule provisions that state substantially the same thing in 
the second draft as was stated in the first draft, U S WEST respectfully 
requests the Commission to view its comments on the first draft as still being 
applicable.  Following are U S WEST’s comments which focus on areas where the 
proposed rules do not comply with federal and state law.

I. WAC 480-123-160  End User Retail Revenue
 
 U S WEST supports the Commission’s decision to use retail end-user revenues 
instead of gross net of payments to other carriers for purposes of establishing 
and calculating an end user USF surcharge.  This funding base is consistent 
with federal guidelines, is easier to administer, and once properly defined, 
should achieve a competitively neutral methodology.   However, this section of 
the proposed rule is impermissibly vague and needs to be revised.
 The section defines a term, “End-User Retail Revenue”, as meaning “the carrier’
s end-user retail revenue reported on FCC Universal Service Worksheet Form 457 
multiplied by the percentage of revenue attributable to Washington 
telecommunications services.”  WAC 480-123-160 must be redrafted for the 
following reasons:
 First, there is no category on FCC Universal Service Worksheet Form 457 called 
“end user retail revenue.”  Subsection (2) of the proposed rule explains that 
“references to the worksheet include instructions on pp. 13-20 of the 
instructions to the worksheet published July 1997.”  Nothing in these 
instructions defines a category of information to be known from areas on the 
worksheet as “end-user retail revenue.”  
 Second, for each category of revenues on the worksheet, three numbers are 
sought: total revenues, percent interstate and international, and interstate 
and international revenues.  The definition in WAC 480-123-160 does not say to 
which number the percent for Washington is to be applied. The percent for 
Washington should be applied to the total revenues number, and should include 
interstate and international revenues. 
 Third, if the rule were interpreted as referring to the data on the second 
page of the worksheet below the line entitled “Revenue from All Other Sources,” 
that category includes “Charges on end-user bills identified as recovering 
state or federal universal service contributions.”  This would result in the 
same element being on both sides of the equation, resulting in a meaningless 
calculation.
 Fourth, “end user retail revenue” is not defined in WAC 480-120-021.  It is 
also not defined in the instructions to Form 457.  Since the contributions of 
each carrier are apparently determined by WAC 480-123-230 as the ratio of that 
carrier’s end user retail revenue attributable to Washington operations to the 
total of such revenue for all carriers, it is important that all carriers 
understand and apply the definitions of these terms in the same way.  However, 
WAC 480-123-160 provides no guidance whatsoever on how the “percentage of 
revenue attributable to Washington services” is to be determined.  Without 
specific rule language, carriers can choose from a variety of options, such as:
 
   The percent billed to Washington locations compared to total revenues
   The percent of revenue generated by calls that originate in Washington, even 
if 
                             the billed party is located elsewhere 
   Washington jurisdictionally intrastate revenue
  
 Given the draconian penalties that are associated with failure to file this 
information according to the proposed rules, there should be some clarity and 
specification within this rule section itself on what information is required.  
 U S WEST proposes this section be amended to include two additional items.  
First, carriers should provide actual reporting of Washington specific revenues 
and should not estimate those revenues based on a percentage, when such 
information is available.  Second, the formula or manner in which the 
percentage of revenue attributable to Washington telecommunications services is 
determined must be defined by this rule.
 U S WEST suggests the following rule language change:
 
 (1)  End-user retail telecommunications revenue is the carrier’s Washington 
specific revenues which shall be reported pursuant to the guidelines and format 
of FCC Worksheet Form 457.  If a telecommunications provider is unable to 
determine Washington specific revenues, the provider will report its end-user 
retail revenues as reported on FCC Universal Service Worksheet Form 457 
multiplied by the percentage of revenue attributable to Washington 
telecommunications services.  The percentage will be calculated for each line 
item as required in WAC 480-123-240 (1), on a product specific basis.  In other 
words, the percentage is not based on an aggregate Washington percentage of 
total revenues.
 (2)  The percentage of revenue attributable to each Washington 
telecommunications service shall be calculated based on the percent billed to 
Washington locations divided by total billed.
 

II. WAC 480-123-180  High-Cost Location
 
 This section violates the statutory provision in Washington, Chapter 337, §1(7)
(c), L. 1998, that high cost locations be “locations,” not “geographic areas,” 
and that the cost be the cost, not the “average cost per line.”  Given that in 
the adjudicative proceeding, there are several levels of “geographic area” for 
which costs can be calculated, including the grid, the urbanized/non urbanized 
units of wire centers, the wire center and the state, this proposed rule is too 
vague to be enforced.   To properly target USF support, the geographic support 
area must be below a wire center, U S WEST supports the urbanized non-urbanized 
support scheme.
 WAC 480-123-360 and 370 contemplate determining high cost areas by exchange or 
“service area.”  Under the staff’s proposal, the determination called for in 
the statute is reversed.  The statute calls for a single benchmark, but the 
proposed rule envisions multiple benchmarks.  The staff’s rule is susceptible 
to being manipulated by the selection of the geographic area.  There is no 
procedure for the determination mentioned in this rule, to be made or commented 
on or disseminated.  
 Furthermore, WAC 480-123-250 requires monthly reports of the number and type 
of access lines in high cost locations by each SETC, and these reports are 
presumably used by the administrator in projecting the demand on the fund which 
is in turn used to set the required contributions to the fund, although the 
proposed rules contain absolutely nothing on these issues.
 This rule language must be revised to be consistent with Washington, Chapter 
337, §1(7)(c), L. 1998. U S WEST suggests the following rule language change:
 
“High cost location means a location where the cost of providing 
telecommunications services is greater than a benchmark established by the 
commission by rule.”

III. WAC 480-123-190  Revenue Benchmark
 
 This section fails to comply with the express command of the Legislature that 
the benchmark be “established by rule.”  It also is inconsistent with the 
correct interpretation of the provisions of Chapter 337, §1(7)(c), L. 1998 that 
the benchmark be a cost benchmark, not a revenue benchmark.  
 This proposed rule does not establish a benchmark.  It indicates that there is 
some further undefined procedure by which not one, but multiple benchmarks will 
be determined at some other time than the adoption of this rule.  It also 
suggests that the Commission can include “other revenues” without definition of 
what may be included.  It is also not clear what is intended by the proposed 
bundled service rule language:  
 
“In the case of bundled service offerings at one price, the commission will 
determine, for purpose of calculating a revenue benchmark, what portion of the 
bundled price will be considered in arriving at a revenue benchmark.”  

These rule provisions are clearly vague, and do not provide for sufficient, 
predictable USF support mechanisms. Nor do they identify for the legislature 
the intent of the Commission.  The fact that the Commission even introduced 
this concept, demonstrates why the use of a revenue benchmark should be 
rejected because of its instability. This language must be stricken or revised 
to specifically address what revenues will be included.
 In conjunction with WAC 480-123-180, it is clear that the “applicable 
benchmark” is used to determine the high cost locations that are described in 
Chapter 337, §1(7)(c), L. 1998.  The plain language of the statute requires 
that there be a single benchmark and that it be “established by the commission 
by rule.”  This proposed rule violates the plain language of the statute.  The 
Commission will not be able to advise the Legislature on November  1, 1998 what 
the estimated cost to support lines in high-cost locations is, as required by 
Chapter 337, §1(3), L. 1998, unless this provision is modified to establish a 
benchmark in dollar terms, rather than the general description that it now 
contains.  
 It is also clear that the benchmark is a “rule” as defined by RCW 
34.05.010(16) because it “establishes ...[a].qualification or requirement 
relating to the enjoyment of benefits or privileges conferred by law..” namely 
the receipt of dollars of USF support for serving high cost locations.  
Therefore the benchmark, as a dollar amount and not as a description of 
something the Commission will later “determine,” must either be adopted in the 
WAC after statutory notice and comment or else it “shall not be effective for 
any purpose.” RCW 34.05.345 [emphasis added]  Such purposes include collections 
of contributions measured by relation to the numbers of access lines whose 
costs exceed the unadopted benchmark.
 U S WEST continues to disagree with the adoption of a revenue benchmark and 
supports a cost based benchmark for the reasons stated in our prior comments.
 
IV. WAC 480-123-200 Services Supported By The Universal Service Fund
 
 As stated in our comments on Draft 1 of the Commission’s rules, U S WEST is in 
agreement with services listed in (a) through (i) of this section, as long as 
the Commission’s definition of toll limitation services is the same as the FCC’
s definition. Specifically that toll limitation means either toll blocking or 
toll control.  The rules should include this language.
 As stated in our previous comments, Subsection (2) of this proposed rule is 
not authorized by Chapter 337, L. 1998.  An end to end transfer rate of data at 
28.8 kbps as required by this section is higher than voice grade service.  
Nothing in Chapter 337, §1(7)(b), L. 1998, authorizes support for any higher 
grade of service than voice grade.  It is beyond the Commission’s authority to 
condition entitlement to a statutory program which requires support of nothing 
higher than voice grade service, on a carrier’s having invested to provide 
higher than voice grade service for lines that are subject to this specific 
statutory program.  This rule not only is without supporting authority, it 
contravenes an express prohibition in Chapter 337, §3, L. 1998 against the 
adoption of any rules for the support of services other than those basic 
services defined in §1(7)(b).  Clearly, the effect of the proposed subsection 
(2) is indirectly to support higher than voice grade service with USF funds 
because without the higher than voice grade service the carrier would not have 
access to the USF funds.  This entire section must be deleted. 
  If the Commission includes this section in violation of Chapter 337, the 
Commission must acknowledge the ramifications of this requirement by providing 
rule language that provides adequate funding support to carriers to meet this 
obligation at the commencement of the program, in recognition of the carrier 
cost imposed by this standard.  It would require at least a five year program 
to meet the proposed requirement that “all lines for which support is received 
must be capable of end-to-end transfer rates sending and receiving information 
at a rate no lower than 28.8 kilobits per second.”  In addition, the Commission 
would have to reset all incumbent carrier depreciation schedules to allow 
depreciation recovery of plant it mandates must be replaced over the five year 
period through a five year depreciation rate with commensurate end user rates.
 The Commission must address this issue as part of the proposed rule, for 
compliance with the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which specifically states:
 
 “A State may adopt regulations to provide for additional definitions and 
standards to preserve and advance universal service within the State only to 
the extent that such regulations adopt additional specific, predictable, and 
sufficient mechanisms to support such definitions  or standards that do not 
rely on or burden Federal universal service support mechanisms.”  (emphasis 
added) Section 254(f) 
 
 The Act also states that universal service is an evolving level of 
telecommunications and gave the FCC guidelines to use in determining the extent 
of services to be included in the definition of universal service, 
specifically, the Act states services included should, “have, through the 
operation of market choices by customers been subscribed to by a substantial 
majority of residential customers, and are being deployed in public 
telecommunications networks by telecommunications carriers.  Section 254(c ) 
(1) ( B-C)  In their interpretation of these guidelines, the FCC determined in 
their May 8 order:
 
 “We conclude, except as further designated with respect to eligible schools, 
libraries, and health care providers, that voice grade access, and not high 
speed data transmission, is the appropriate goal of universal service policies 
at this time because we are concerned that supporting an overly expansive 
definition of core services could adversely affect all consumers by increasing 
the expense of the universal service program and, thus, increasing the basic 
cost of telecommunications services for all.  …voice grade access is subscribed 
to by a substantial majority of residential customers, and is being deployed in 
public telecommunications networks by telecommunications carriers.  In 
contrast, the record in this proceeding does not demonstrate that the higher 
bandwidth services and data transmission capabilities advocated by Bar of New 
York and MFS are, at this time, necessary for the public health and safety and 
that a substantial majority of customers currently subscribe to these 
services.”  ¶64
 
 The Commission should likewise determine that voice grade services today are 
sufficient to meet universal service requirements consistent with the 
guidelines established by Congress in the Act and Washington Chapter 337.   The 
Commission should provide a provision that it will periodically review its 
definition to determine when the definition of universal service should evolve 
to include additional services or capabilities.  In the alternative, the 
Commission will have to provide specific, predictable and sufficient mechanisms 
to support its expansive definition which the present rules do not provide for.
 
 V. WAC 480-123-210  Contributors to the Universal  Service Fund
 
 U S WEST supports the proposed rule language which includes all 
telecommunications carriers providing telecommunications services in the state 
of Washington.  However this objective is currently inconsistent with the 
Washington legislation definition of  “telecommunications carrier”.  Chapter 
337 defines  “telecommunications carrier” as meaning “local exchange carrier.”  
Chapter 337, §1(7)(a) states that “telecommunications carrier” has the same 
meaning as defined in 47 U.S.C. Sec. 153(44).  Subsection 44 of Section 153, 
however, defines “Local Exchange Carrier,” as “any person that is engaged in 
the provision of telephone exchange service or exchange access,” excluding 
commercial mobile service unless the FCC finds that such service should be 
included.  
 Subsection 44 does not use the term “telecommunications carrier,” nor does it 
define that term.  47 U.S.C. §153(49) defines “telecommunications carrier” as 
“any provider of telecommunications services,” except for aggregators.  The 
inconsistency is that by the terms of the Washington act, only local exchange 
carriers are required to contribute to the SUSF, but all telecommunications 
carriers including IXCs are required to contribute to the federal USF and by 
the terms of 47 U.S.C. §254(f), every telecommunications carrier (broadly 
defined to include IXCs) that provides intrastate service must contribute on an 
equitable and nondiscriminatory basis to the advancement of universal service 
in the state.  
 Chapter 337, §2(c), L. 1998 provides that the universal service program to be 
established in accordance with §1 shall not be inconsistent with the 
requirements of 47 U.S.C. §254, but as has just been demonstrated, the statute 
itself is inconsistent with the requirements of 47 U.S.C. §254.  This is an 
item that the Commission will need to bring to the attention of the legislature 
in its November, 1998 report.

VI. WAC 480-123-230 Contributions Based on End-User Retail Revenues as Reported 
on FCC Universal Service Worksheet Form 457
 
 This section, like the previously discussed WAC 480-123-160, fails to state 
how the percentage of end user retail revenue attributable to Washington 
operations is to be determined.  See prior comments on WAC 480-123-160.
 Additionally, the Commission’s methodology of determining contributions into 
the fund, does not reflect the realities of the competitive telecommunications 
environment the Commission is trying to structure.   Basing a carrier’s 
contributions on a historical ratio of the revenue market it had six months ago 
is inappropriate.  While the level of revenue in aggregate may remain at the 
same level, the distribution of revenues among providers will constantly 
shift.  The better methodology the Commission should adopt is a uniform 
surcharge against all monthly revenues which is easy to administer and more 
reflective of the dynamic market conditions.  Ideally it should be an end user 
surcharge for the reasons stated in the Supplemental Comments of US WEST filed 
October 16, 1998.
 
VII. WAC 480-123-240 Revenue Reports
 
 This section continues the opaque references to the “portion of each line that 
is attributable to Washington operations” with reference to the revenues 
reported on FCC Universal Service Worksheet Form 457.  There is no basis in the 
rule or the instructions for the worksheet, to determine this portion and the 
rule is therefore too vague to be enforced.  See previous comments on WAC 
480-123-160.
 Additionally, there is no statutory authority in Chapter 337, L. 1998 or any 
other statute, for the penalties the proposed rule contains for late filing of 
revenue reports.  The Commission has no inherent powers, and it certainly has 
no inherent power to impose penalties that are not specifically provided in 
statutes.  In re Consolidated Cases, 123 Wn. 2d 530, 869 P. 2d 1045 (1994).  If 
the Commission believes this authority is important, they should seek the 
authority for this specific purpose from the legislature. Additionally, there 
is no indication in the proposed rule what the disposition of the penalty 
collections would be, other than to be passed back to all contributors as 
excess contributions in WAC 480-123-430.  This is clearly a “private taking” 
and is unconstitutional.  
 The proposed rule would allow the commission to set the amount of the penalty 
at any level up to $10,000 per day for a carrier that files late and has not 
made or been obligated to make a contribution in a previous year, and to 
increase the fine without any limit at all, if a report is not filed after a 
fine or fines are imposed.  There is no authority for this unlimited fining in 
any statute.  There are no standards to guide the exercise of the authority, so 
the attempt to exercise this authority would be unconstitutional.   
 Additionally, there is no provision for notice and hearing on any alleged 
violations before imposition of a fine, and such notice and hearing are 
necessary elements of any process that leads to punishment.  Proposed 
subsection rule language (2) and (3) must be stricken and the Commission should 
rely on RCW 80.04.387 and RCW 80.04.390.

VIII. WAC 480-123-270 Determination of Contribution
 
 This section provides no guidance whatsoever into what facts, in addition to 
the revenue reports required by WAC 480-123-240, the administrator will use to 
set the total support amount that must be met by carrier contributions.  
Clearly, the only function of the revenue reports under the proposed rules is 
to determine each carrier’s aliquot share of the total support obligation.  The 
proposed rules allow far too much discretion to the administrator in sizing the 
amount of the tax to be borne by exchange providers in Washington.  
Additionally, there are no standards to guide the exercise of delegated 
authority in this rule.  The rules must specifically specify how the size of 
the fund (i.e. the amount of support) will be determined.  U S WEST continues 
to disagree with the process or timing of the payment schedule for 
contributions to the USF as well as for the disbursement of funds from the 
USF.  See our previous comments on this issue,
 Furthermore, as in the case of WAC 480-123-240, there is no statutory or other 
legal authority for the penalties that this proposed rule would impose for late 
payments.  There is also no due process provided for in the rule before the 
penalties are imposed. Proposed subsection rule language (4), (5) and (6) must 
be stricken and the Commission should rely on RCW 80.04.387 and RCW 80.04.390 
or seek the specific authority previously discussed.
 
IX. WAC 480-123-290 Contributions From Carrier Revenue

 The proposed rules attempt to address the earlier concerns raised with respect 
to full disclosure of USF support, however the problems articulated in U S WEST’
s earlier comments remain unresolved.  The proposed rule continues to advocate 
implicit subsidies and only attempts to address disclosure of such information 
to the retail customer.  The Commission revised the rule to include the 
following language:
 
 (1) No disclosure; including no disclosure of percent of customer payment 
       contributed by the carrier to the fund; or
 (2) Full disclosure of receipts and contributions, including:
  a.  The amount of monthly support the carrier receives from the fund;
  b. The amount of the carrier contribution;
  c. The amount of support per line received by the carrier in the customer’s  
                 exchange;
  d. A recurring statement of the carrier total and per-line rate 
reduction         
                 ordered under WAC 480-123-390
     
This proposed language does not include disclosure of the amount of support the 
end user is paying to contribute to the State USF, therefore such end user 
costs remain embedded in the rates for other services as implicit subsidies.  
This conclusion is clearly prohibited by the Federal Telecommunications Act and 
Chapter 337. 
 The Commission is silent in these rules on the cost recovery of a carrier’s 
contributions into the USF.  This issue should and must be addressed.  U S WEST 
continues to support the recovery of payments through a uniform end user 
surcharge explicitly shown on the customer’s bill.  Absent the end user 
surcharge, the Commission must allow an automatic flow through of fund 
contribution obligations. Regulated providers must not be subjected to rate 
case proceedings, to recover  fluctuations in contributions that can occur 
twice a year, while unregulated providers have complete freedom to determine 
how their costs will be recovered.  The Commission must address this issue in 
its rules and the recovery mechanism should be explicit as mandated by the Act.

X. WAC 480-123-330 Designation of Eligible 
Telecommunications Carriers

It is not clear what is intended by the following proposed rule language:

“Designation for wireline carriers will be for an exchange and conform to 
existing exchange boundaries of their company or those of an historical 
incumbent.”

As currently drafted, the rule suggests two definitions of an exchange for 
wireline carriers: 1) existing exchange boundaries of a wireline carrier, which 
may or may not mirror historical exchange boundaries and 2) historical 
incumbent exchange carrier boundaries.

If two wireline exchange designations are not intended, the above language 
should be clarified. 

 U S WEST continues to advocate the Commission should adopt two additional 
criteria for purposes of a state ETC designation.  Specifically, the ETC must 
offer a basic package of universal service at a price not to exceed a 
commission determined affordability level and the ETC must assume carrier of 
last resort responsibility in its service area.

X(a). Alternative WAC 480-123-330 
Designation of Eligible Telecommunications Carriers
 
 As an alternative to proposed WAC 480-123-200(2), the provisions of paragraph 
(2)(d) of this section still fail to comply with the restriction in Chapter 
337, §2, L. 1998 that the power of the Commission to adopt new rules to 
preserve and advance universal service under §254(f) of the federal act is 
limited to the actions expressly authorized by Chapter 337, §1, L. 1998.  The 
actions that are expressly authorized by Chapter 337, §1, L. 1998 are the 
planning and preparation of a program for the preservation and enhancement of 
universal telecommunications service whose purpose is to support basic 
telecommunications services for customers of telecommunications companies in 
high-cost areas, estimating the costs of serving lines, determining assessments 
on carriers to support such lines, adopting or preparing rules, providing a fee 
schedule, reporting to the Legislature, establishing standards for review or 
testing of compliance, and coordinating with any federal USF program.  
 The specific definitions of basic telecommunications services in Chapter 337, 
§1(7)(b) do not include the element of eliminating impediments to the provision 
of advanced telecommunications and information services in high-cost areas that 
are reasonably comparable to those services provided in urban areas and are 
provided at comparable rates to those in urban areas.
 Furthermore, Section 254 (c) (1) states:

“Universal service is an evolving level of telecommunications services that the 
Commission shall establish periodically under this section, taking into account 
advances in telecommunications and information technologies and services.  The 
Joint Board in recommending, and the Commission in establishing, the definition 
of the services that are supported by Federal universal service support 
mechanisms shall consider the extent to which such telecommunications services 
- 
(B) have, through the operation of market choices by customers, been subscribed 
to by a substantial majority of residential customers;
(C) are being deployed in public telecommunications networks by 
telecommunications carriers; and”

 Clearly, the proposed rules attempt to impose new technical requirements on 
carriers without providing for the recovery of the cost.

XI. WAC 480-123-340 Modification, Revocation, or Suspension of Eligible 
Telecommunications Carrier Designation

 The proposed rules suggest that the Commission may modify the service area of 
an ETC for purposes of the universal service support and that such could occur 
at any open meeting of the Commission.  There may be legal problems associated 
with a requirement for a carrier to assume an ETC role for an area it does not 
serve and chooses not to serve without due process or first having an 
opportunity to be heard.  The Commission has received proposals as to how 
“unserved areas” or non-designated exchanges should be addressed.  The rules 
must address the Commission procedure that will be followed for such areas.
 
XII. WAC 480-123-390 Revenue Benchmark – Wireline
 
 U S WES