Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-38
95
only and include support from the USF High-Cost Program.
688
For those areas in which states have
traditionally held a role and which more often involve jurisdictionally intrastate services, our preemption
here does not change states’ responsibility to designate ETCs.
689
Additionally, although some
commenters argue that section 214(e) implicitly preserves any state authority relevant to ETC
designations,
690
the interrelationship between section 214(e) and section 254—i.e., the purpose of a
section 214(e) ETC designation is to implement universal service support mechanisms under section
254—supports our present preemption of state designations of LBPs as conflicting with the goals of
section 254.
258. Some commenters suggest the FCC is ill-equipped to assume the responsibility of
designating broadband providers for the Lifeline program.
691
In response, we expect our reforms to the
federal ETC designation process for Lifeline Broadband Providers to prevent petitions from pending
longer than is necessary to ensure the continued integrity of the program and protection of consumers.
692
Other commenters argued that the current ETC designation process is not generally lengthy or onerous,
and is an important tool in combatting waste, fraud, and abuse in the Lifeline program.
693
We find,
however, that a centralized LBP designation process can further streamline the burdens of seeking
designation while continuing to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse in the program.
694
Similar to the state
measures to prevent fraud that NARUC discusses, Commission rules require annual reporting, annual
688
We also note that, to the extent that state commissions have declined to designate carriers as ETCs over concerns
about those carriers’ 911 services, this Order does not prevent states from inquiring into such issues for carriers
offering voice service seeking a non-Lifeline Broadband Provider ETC designation. Contra Letter from James
Bradford Ramsay, General Counsel, NARUC, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WC Docket No. 11-42, at 5
(filed Feb. 18, 2016); Letter from Catherine J.K. Sandoval, Commissioner, California Public Utilities Commission,
et al., to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WC Docket No. 11-42 et al., at 2 (filed Feb. 22, 2016). This Order
also does not prevent states from creating and implementing their own programs to support broadband adoption
among low-income consumers. Contra Letter from James Bradford Ramsay, General Counsel, NARUC, to Marlene
H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WC Docket No. 11-42, at 6 (filed Feb. 18, 2016) (arguing that removing states’ ETC
designation role will result in fewer state matching programs).
689
States will therefore continue to be in a position to evaluate issues like a non-LBP ETC’s ability to meet ETC
service and facilities requirements. See Letter from Catherine J.K. Sandoval, Commissioner, California Public
Utilities Commission, et al., to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WC Docket No. 11-42 et al., at 2 (filed Feb. 22,
2016). We find that the Commission is capable of determining whether common carriers seeking designation as an
LBP will be able to fulfill those requirements, as detailed below. See infra section III.E.2 (Lifeline Obligations for
Eligible Telecommunications Carriers). We recognize that section 254(i) contemplates that “the Commission and
the States should ensure that universal service is available at rates that are just, reasonable, and affordable.” 47
U.S.C. § 254(i). We do not here preempt any otherwise permissible efforts, consistent with state law, to provide
state support. Contra Letter from David E. Screven, Assistant Counsel, Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, to
Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WC Docket No. 11-42 et al., at 1-2 (filed Feb. 22, 2016).
690
See, e.g., NARUC Comments at 11; Letter from James Bradford Ramsay, General Counsel, NARUC, to Marlene
H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WC Docket No. 11-42 et al., at 2-3 (filed Feb. 18, 2016).
691
See NARUC Comments at 11 & n.26; Pennsylvania PUC Comments at 29-30.
692
See infra paras. 277-285 (discussing ETC designation process reforms).
693
See WTA—Advocates for Rural Broadband Comments at 14; Letter from James Bradford Ramsay, General
Counsel, NARUC, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WC Docket No. 11-42, at 5 (filed Feb. 18, 2016).
694
See Letter from Javier Rúa Jovet, Chairman, Telecommunications Regulatory Board of Puerto Rico, to Tom
Wheeler, Chairman, FCC, et al., WC Docket No. 11-42 et al., at 5 (filed Mar. 21, 2016) (“The Commission can—
and should—require that registered Lifeline broadband providers meet certain financial and operational conditions,
maintain compliance plans, and be subject to audit.”).