Certain Silence

Okay, maybe radical is too strong a word for this one. Counterintuitive, at least.

(3) ACCESS IN RURAL AND HIGH COST AREAS- Consumers in all regions of the Nation, including low-income consumers and those in rural, insular, and high cost areas, should have access to telecommunications and information services, including interexchange services and advanced telecommunications and information services, that are reasonably comparable to those services provided in urban areas and that are available at rates that are reasonably comparable to rates charged for similar services in urban areas.

So if you live in a rural, insular and high cost, or are a low-income consumer, you should have access to services and pay rates that are “reasonably comparable” to what urban residents get. Consistent with the general strategy of the Act, reasonably comparable is left to the FCC and perhaps judges to define.

We know that rural areas generally cost more to serve for wireline services, so this principle essentially ensured that geographic rate averaging was explicit federal policy. As commentators at the time pointed out, the rest of the 96 Act introduced competition to drive rates down to cost while maintaining a system of cross subsidies designed to prevent just that.

But what’s new in this principle and wouldn’t necessarily be inferred from the history is the second part, about access to services. Insofar as a unified telephone system required innovation to be diffused throughout the network, this may have been the case, and there are certainly parallels in anti-redlining provisions of local franchising agreements for cable companies. But this principle calls for federal subsidies to ensure that there is technological equity (at least in terms of services) between networks in urban and rural areas.

technorati tags:att, universalservice, fcc, 96act