|19||The 10th Annual Independent Show|
|3||Quarterly Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet - Form 499A|
|31||Copyright Statement of Accounts|
|1||Local Telephone Competition and Broadband Reporting - Form 477|
|30||Annual EEO Report - Form 396-C|
In its comments, ACA highlighted the following:
Current policy that requires four or five traffic studies annually represents a significant administrative burden and legal cost. The rules should instead allow small providers to rely on the prior year's traffic study and require only one traffic study filing per year. The FCC should clarify that it is not necessary to file a traffic study when a VoIP provider determines its jurisdictional allocations by measuring 100 percent of its traffic for the reporting period, which is its actual interstate revenue.
The FCC should revisit the safe harbor rate of 64.9% for allocating revenues from interconnected VoIP services established in 2006. The FCC's assumptions at the time about VoIP's use as a toll bypass long-distance service do not reflect the current provision and use of cable VoIP services by most ACA Members today. Despite the fact that the interstate usage of cable operator voice services is usually far less than 64.9%, many small cable operators nonetheless use the safe harbor because it is administratively difficult and expensive to prepare traffic studies.
Given the relatively minor amounts contributed by smaller providers and the administrative burdens imposed on them, the FCC should increase the de minimis threshold at least back to its original de facto level of $200,000 in annual assessable revenues.
The FCC should not adopt a new rule making all bundled revenues assessable unless the provider allocates revenues based on prices for stand-alone service offerings. If the FCC decides that a brighter line needs to be drawn with respect to bundles, ACA suggested that the FCC provide smaller operators with the option of either basing the allocation on stand-alone offerings or creating a safe harbor allocation based on average industry allocations for residential triple-play services. Likewise, the FCC should not require cable operators to offer a transmission service for which there is little or no demand to avoid being assessed.
The FCC should not assess USF broadband Internet services based on speed or capacity tiers. Adopting an assessment based solely on downstream speed provided under normal conditions or other metrics would not accurately reflect the nature of the service, and an assessment based on speed or capacity would interfere with the growth and development of the market.
The FCC should not adopt a requirement that a provider's advertised price include the USF contribution, claiming it would be a significant burden for providers -- especially with the contribution amount changing quarterly -- without any demonstrated material benefit. ACA notes that it could be more confusing for consumers.
The FCC should not require service providers to segregate all USF collections from end users into dedicated trust accounts for the sole benefit of the Fund because so far the FCC has provided no indication that a sizeable number of service providers become insolvent each year or that the Fund has been deprived of a material amount of revenue as a result of such insolvencies. At most, the FCC could consider allowing the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) to impose this requirement only on contributors with a history of late payment or are in bankruptcy.
"ACA appreciates the FCC's efforts to reform the USF contribution mechanism. We believe it would be most productive for the agency to focus first on the burdens imposed on providers by the current mechanism and then proceed cautiously with the design of its new funding mechanism so it does not unreasonably burden smaller contributors and deter consumers from subscribing to cutting-edge services," Polka said.
Please use the information below to get in touch with the American Cable Association.