STATEMENT OF
COMMISSIONER LARRY S. LANDIS
CONCURRING IN PART, DISSENTING IN PART
In the Matter of Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, CC Docket No. 96-
45; Lifeline and Link Up, WC Docket No. 03-109
While the Recommended Decision that is issued today has much to commend it, at least 
two aspects of the underlying Lifeline referral need to be further addressed:  The absence of a 
clearly defined problem with regard to existing eligibility, verification, and outreach rules and 
procedures; and the absence of metrics or standards for determining when we have achieved 
success in solving those problems. 
 
The underlying Lifeline referral (and, hence, the Recommended Decision) did not arise in 
a vacuum.  That referral can only be understood as an extension of, and largely integrated with, 
the National Broadband Plan (“NBP”) and related FCC documents, despite the fact that the NBP 
is intended as more road map than detailed policy document.  This tight integration with the NBP 
has several important consequences.  The potential consequences for RLECs and mid-size LECs 
is considerable, because the NBP does not confront either their important role in meeting the goal 
of enhancing broadband availability or the indirect harm that some of its proposed policies could 
do to those companies.  
Too little attention has been paid to the financial health of RLECs (and mid-size 
companies) and the importance of existing High Cost support.  The NBP contains a number of 
ambitious broadband deployment proposals that will require billions of dollars in new funding, 
likely significantly greater than projected, as required to bridge the Broadband Availability Gap 
($23.5 billion).  Acknowledgment of the need for “significantly higher [amounts of funding] than 
the incremental calculation indicates” was included in a staff technical paper and a footnote in the 
USF NOI/NPRM.  Had it been placed in the body of the NPRM instead, that would have allowed 
for a more robust debate of both the sources and uses of universal service funding, and whether 
sufficient funds remain to meet the legitimate ongoing needs of providers in rural, insular and 
high cost areas.  
Thus far we have not fully identified the source of additional funding needed if Lifeline 
subscribership increases substantially (e.g., due to modifications to eligibility requirements and/or 
expanded outreach efforts).  Setting aside the NBP, the RD itself notes that it would not be 
unreasonable to estimate that the size of the Low Income fund could grow to at least $2 billion in 
the next few years, before including any growth attributable to adding support for broadband.  
The NBP contains many recommendations and promises of additional broadband 
deployment efforts (in particular, the new Connect America Fund, which includes efforts to 
address the Broadband Availability Gap and other deployments to non-low-income households) 
coupled with the new Mobility Fund.  However, the sources of funding are not always evident.  
The NBP solution, in too many cases, appears to be to repurpose money currently used in support 
of High Cost funding. 
In general, there is a strong preference in the NBP in favor of wireless technologies and 
great  optimism regarding the benefits that wireless technologies can provide, coupled with a lack 
of affirmation for the benefits that RLECs’ and mid-size providers’ wireline broadband access 
networks and in many cases, cable providers are already delivering to many locations.
Based upon a review of the NBP and other FCC documents, there will likely be new and
expanded demands placed on universal service funding mechanisms over the next few years.  
Based on sometimes conflicting recommendations in the NBP, it appears that the FCC plans to 
dramatically revamp or repurpose existing High Cost Fund support.  Intercarrier compensation 
reform efforts are likely to result in the elimination or transformation of other USF components.  
The FCC has yet to address how the existing support will be used in the future, or whether the 
shifting of USF dollars away from traditional High Cost support will be linear over time.
While it is possible that the USF transformation, USF contributions, and/or intercarrier 
compensation reform NPRMs may provide answers to some of those questions, the action we  
take today could have implications, perhaps significant, for sizeable increases in USF support for 
Lifeline services, without a clear understanding of how those increases would be paid for, how 
the need for additional support would fit in with other new demands that will be placed on the 
fund, or additional sources of funding.  
I am authorized to state that Commissioner John Burke of Vermont joins in this separate 
statement as I have joined with his.  I also endorse and commend for review the separate 
statements of my fellow state members Chairman Ray Baum and Chairman James Cawley.