Gerald Brock, a former chief of the FCC’s Common Carrier Bureau has penned a position paper calling for the immediate abolishment of the access charge system. Now a professor of telecommunications and public administration at The George Washington University, Brock argues in his paper titled “Abolish Access Charges Now,” that the access charge system “retards technological progress by creating incentives to maintain old technologies and rate structures.”

That’s a good point—as is Brock’s argument that the access charge system creates arbitrage opportunities, a topic Telecompetitor has covered extensively in the past. But small rural telcos have argued, correctly I think, that the immediate phase-out of today’s access charge system would be disastrous for them unless an equivalent recovery mechanism were also to be established immediately.

Need for Recovery Mechanism?
Brock’s paper doesn’t discuss a recovery mechanism because he apparently believes no such mechanism is needed. According to Brock, small telcos don’t need access charge revenues to bring affordable voice service to high-cost areas.

“Although early access charges were designed to provide subsidies, the identifiable subsidies have already been removed from access charges and the previous subsidy revenue incorporated into USF payments,” Brock writes in his paper, citing what he calls a “17-year phase-out” that was completed in 2001.

To support this view, Brock notes that USF high-cost support payments grew from $2.9 billion in 2002 to $4.5 billion in 2009. But he fails to recognize that a large part of this growth resulted from competitive—primarily wireless–carriers obtaining duplicate funding at the same level of support as the incumbents.

Brock notes, quite correctly, that the funding that rural telcos receive under today’s high-cost program (which is still voice-focused) actually goes toward infrastructure that also supports broadband services. But you’ve got to ask why that’s a bad thing. Rural telcos would argue that this is a key reason why they have been able to extensively deploy broadband throughout their service areas—and as the FCC gears up to transition from a voice to a broadband-focused program, there would seem to be little point in attempting to change that now.

Access Charge Alternatives
Brock argues that new sources of revenue, such as providing unregulated Internet access service, “can compensate for declining historical sources of revenue (such as regulated access charges) in order to cover the cost of assets used for both regulated and unregulated services.” That’s quite an assertion—and if it were true, I doubt rural telcos would be arguing so strongly for a gradual phase-out of the access charge system. Certainly rural telcos recognize that broadband is the future—but on the broadband side, as on the voice side, many of them are finding that it’s not possible to recover the cost of a network build-out by selling service at market rates without a support mechanism. Indeed that’s why the plan to transition the Universal Service program to focus on broadband is being made.

As an alternative to access charges, Brock recommends that the industry use an alternative approach based on reciprocal compensation—and it appears that the FCC plans to eventually transition to that methodology over a period of five to eight years, while also phasing in an access charge revenue recovery mechanism. I doubt Brock’s paper will cause the commission to deviate from that plan. Nevertheless it would be a good idea for rural carriers to voice their undoubtedly major concerns about what Brock is advocating.

Brock’s paper was published by The Free State Foundation, which calls itself a “free market-oriented think tank” located in Rockville, Maryland, which is located in suburban Washington D.C.

Image courtesy of flickr user cogdogblog.

Join the Conversation

8 thoughts on “Former FCC Bureau Chief Advocates Immediate Phase-Out of Access Charges

  1. Always amazed at how these telecom experts, FCC bureau chiefs, professors, think tanks, etc. are so ignorant about how the telecom network actually works. Yeah – abolish access immediately – when the network shuts down for millions of consumers and thousands of businesses, let's have the support calls ring in at the Free State Foundation.

    1. Nice idea, but since the network will be shut down, how will they make the call? These folks forget that the same companies that use access, also connect the cell towers, so not only will home phone and broadband be out, but so will cell service.

  2. It just proves you don't have to have a brain to publish an article, just a title from a previous career that creates the perception of "expert" status. Now that he's a "professor", he even has more credibility. I wonder who paid him to produce the paper???

  3. Brock's entire argument seems to have been demolished by Ms. Engebretson. No need for a Public Notice on this one. Put it in the circular file folks.

    1. But the scary thing is, the FCC and other policy makers read and listen to stuff like this all the time. The fact that he's former FCC only adds to his credibility with the current FCC.

  4. The Access Charges also go to reward companies that actually make the investment in last mile technology to reach customers. Long Distance carriers make money on that loop even though they don't make the investment–the rural telco does. If they aren't going to pay anything to reach the customer, then we should not be required to connect their calls. I do not advocate ridiculous access rates, but to give the IXC's a free ride to customer homes without paying for use of that network is ridiculous and removes the motivation for telcos to build those connections.

  5. The omission of why the fund has grown from $2.9 billion to $4.5 billion tells us who is buttering Mr. Brock's bread. If you are going to tell a story, tell the whole story. We have invested approximately $44 million in a network to provide service to rural Arkansas and the use of that network should be worth something.

  6. We don't need any stinking access charges, and if you don't believe me just ask Skype, Vonage, and Magic Jak. We don't have to complete your calls if there are access charges that will hurt our economic model. Long live "free" enterprise – free as in don't charge me. (quotuth Google)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Don’t Miss Any of Our Content

What’s happening with broadband and why is it important? Find out by subscribing to Telecompetitor’s newsletter today.

You have Successfully Subscribed!