Universal service

Last updated

Universal service is an economic, legal and business term used mostly in regulated industries, referring to the practice of providing a baseline level of services to every resident of a country. An example of this concept is found in the US Telecommunications Act of 1996, whose goals are:

Contents

Universal service was widely adopted in legislation in Europe beginning in the 1980s and 1990s. [1] For instance, under the EU Postal Services Directive (97/67/EC), the Electricity Market Directive (2003/54/EC) and the Telecommunications Directive (2002/22/EC). The language of "universal service" has also been used in proposals by the US Democratic Party for the reform of health care.

Origins of universal service

The concept of universal service appears to have originated with Rowland Hill and the Uniform Penny Post which he introduced in the United Kingdom in 1837. Though Hill never used the term "universal service", his postal system had the hallmarks of early universal service; postal rates were reduced to uniform rates throughout the nation which were affordable to most Britons, enabled by the postage stamp (first introduced here) and a General Post Office monopoly on mail. Hill's reforms were quickly adopted by postal authorities worldwide, including the United States Post Office Department (now the United States Postal Service) which already held a monopoly through the Private Express Statutes. The service obligations of USPS under current law are commonly referred to as the "universal service obligation" or "USO". Universal service is also a key objective of the Universal Postal Union. [2]

Interconnection between telephone exchanges (1907-1960s)

In the early history of the telephone up until the early 20th century, telephone service was fragmented. The ability to make a telephone call depended on not just on both parties having telephones, but that their telephone companies used the same standards and that there was a physical interconnect of their networks. The term "universal service" originated with Theodore Newton Vail, president of American Telephone & Telegraph (the original AT&T) and head of the Bell System, in 1907 with the corporate slogan "One Policy, One System, Universal Service". [3] [4] [5] It was intended as a contrast to the "dual service" that had become common since the original Bell telephone patents expired in 1894, where independent telephone companies operated not only in non-Bell System markets, but also as a competitor in Bell markets. [6]

These independent phone companies did not interconnect to the Bell System; though modern commentators [3] suggest Bell refused to do so as an excuse for monopolization, it was argued then that phone systems of that day could not interconnect unless all phone companies used the same technology, as the Bell System did. This required many businesses to maintain phones with both companies, or else risk losing customers who subscribed to the other phone company.

Vail argued that an interconnected phone system (the Bell System), operated by one company (AT&T) and with rates regulated by the government, would be superior to the dual system and would produce great social benefits, much like Hill's postal reforms.

Eventually, Vail prevailed in his views, first through state laws and ultimately through the Kingsbury Commitment of 1913, where AT&T agreed to several measures, including interconnection with non-competing independent phone companies, to avoid antitrust action, thus formalizing the Bell System monopoly. Meanwhile, the Mann-Elkins Act of 1910 made AT&T subject to regulation by the Interstate Commerce Commission.[ citation needed ]

Bell system

By 1913, AT&T had favored status from U.S. government, allowing it to operate in a noncompetitive economic environment in exchange for subjection to price and quality service regulation. The government asserted that a monopolistic telephone industry would best serve the goal of creating a "universal" network with compatible technology country-wide for telephone consumers. Regulators emphasized limits on profits, enforcing "reasonable" prices for service, setting levels of depreciation and investment for new technology and equipment, dependability and "universality" of service. "Universal" was originally used by AT&T to mean, "interconnection to other networks, not service to all customers". After years of regulation, the term came to include infrastructural development of telephony and service to everyone at a reasonable price. [7]

Willis Graham Act of 1921

The Willis Graham Act of 1921 was called into action in order to resolve pressing issues in the debate about the merits of interconnectivity of telecommunication. The act marks the first piece of legislation in the history of telecommunication to tackle the increasingly difficult challenges of the telecommunication industry in the 20th century. Before the Graham act was passed the commonly expressed opinion was, such as by the Senate Commerce Committee, that telephone service fit the definition of a natural monopoly.

The central practical problem, according to the committee, with the Willis Graham Act was competing telecommunication services serving one individual market. The act was in favor of a monopoly, which aimed to exempt competing telephone companies from the antitrust laws and allow them to unify the service by merging competing telecommunication service providers. The main principle behind the act was that there should be only one system in each community through which all users communicate. The focus was exclusively on local service rather than long-distance service, as no independent long-distance lines were able to compete with AT&T.

Communications Act of 1934

Universal service in telecommunications was eventually established as U.S. national policy by the preamble of the Communications Act of 1934, whose preamble declared its purpose as “to make available, so far as possible, to all the people of the United States, a rapid, efficient, Nationwide, and world-wide wire and radio communication service with adequate facilities at reasonable charges”. [8] [9] The chief purpose of this law was to combine the Federal Radio Commission with the ICC's wire communications powers, including regulation of AT&T, into a new Federal Communications Commission with greater powers over both radio and wire communications. The language of the 1934 Communications Act was later re-interpreted to mean a commitment for telephone companies to provide service to all people, but historically this language was aimed at the more limited goal of unifying the United State's fragmentary telephone exchanges into a single universal system. [10]

To comply with the act, AT&T began increasing the price of long-distance service to pay for universal service. The act also established the FCC to oversee all non-governmental broadcasting, interstate communications, as well as international communication which originate or terminate in the United States.

Providing service to all (1970s-present)

The concept of universal service underwent a significant shift in the 1970s, focused less on interconnection, and more on providing service to all. The 1975 report to congress by Eugene V. Rostow on behalf of AT&T was influential in offering a reinterpretation of the 1934 communications Act as defending the benefits of monopoly: not duplicating infrastructure and providing service to all. [11] [12]

Though the Bell System divestiture of 1984 dissolved the monopoly that inspired the term (though SBC Communications, one of the Baby Bells created then, ultimately bought AT&T and assumed its name [4] ), universal service remained official U.S. telecommunications policy under the 1934 Act, even as the FCC began to abandon rate regulation. It was further codified by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, [13] even as it permitted expanded competition in the telecommunications field. The Federal Communications Commission is actively exploring universal service reform, and the place of universal service to the broadband communications environment. [14]

Funding

Most countries fund their USO by requiring the incumbent operator to be the designated USO provider or USP. USPs often previously held a legal monopoly protection. The USO is thus funded by rates/tariffs, and also by scale and scope economies. The risk of such an approach, while allowing competitive entry, is that a cross-subsidy exists and thus new entrants can potentially cream-skim (enter in only profitable routes or lines). One response is that some countries have a Universal Service Fund and have all their telecommunications industries pay a part of their net earnings into it.[ citation needed ] This fund has different names in different countries:

Implementation

Fig.1 Universal Service Fig1.svg
Fig.1
Fig.2 Universal Service Fig2.svg
Fig.2

Though the nomenclature is different the importance of the goal of universal service has been noted by most of the countries and similar methods are being implemented to work towards this end. Each country gives certain service providers Universal Service Provider or Eligible Telecommunications Carrier status. This allows the provider in question to get subsidies from the universal service fund to economically provide the necessary service.

The basic concept of Universal service is the below-cost pricing of service to increase the quantity of service [15] as shown in Fig. 1.

The figure shows a demand curve where the region in red shows the extent of the original service and the increase shown by the green area represents the increase in the service area once the subsidy helps reduce the prices. The conclusion is simple, as the prices reduce from P1 to P2 the quantity of customers increases form Q1 to Q2. Thus satisfying allowing universal service.

The size of the subsidy paid out to the telecommunication service provider in this case is shown in Fig.2.

Since each call in fact costs price P1 and price P2 in the cash flow from the customer, the rest (P1-P2) comes from the Universal Service Fund.

This is a simplistic case and most countries have very complex legislation to guarantee the service and have several subsidy mechanisms to implement universal service. The case shows the idea behind universal service not the universal service mechanism actually used in any country.

Efficiency

As seen from the above, the number of potential customers increases as the number of people who can now afford it increases. However service providers need to be able to actually provide that service through their network. This build-out of network is also subsidized by funds like the High Cost Fund in the United States which is also provided for in the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

Besides services to deprived areas, there is also a "Lifeline" program that subsidizes telephone service to low-income people regardless of location. [16]

See also

Related Research Articles

Telecommunications in the Philippines are well-developed due to the presence of modern infrastructure facilities. The industry was deregulated in 1995 when President Fidel Ramos signed Republic Act No. 7925. This law opened the sector to more private players and improved the provision of telecom services are better and fairer rates, leading to the creation of many telecommunication service providers for mobile, fixed-line, Internet and other services.

Communications in the United States include extensive industries and distribution networks in print and telecommunication. The primary telecom regulator of communications in the United States is the Federal Communications Commission.

In telecommunications, a customer-premises equipment or customer-provided equipment (CPE) is any terminal and associated equipment located at a subscriber's premises and connected with a carrier's telecommunication circuit at the demarcation point ("demarc"). The demarc is a point established in a building or complex to separate customer equipment from the equipment located in either the distribution infrastructure or central office of the communications service provider.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Telecommunications company</span> Organization that provides telephone and/or other telecommunications service

A telecommunications company is a kind of electronic communications service provider, more precisely a telecommunications service provider (TSP), that provides telecommunications services such as telephony and data communications access. Many traditional solely telephone companies now function as internet service providers (ISPs), and the distinction between a telephone company and ISP has tended to disappear completely over time, as the current trend for supplier convergence in the industry develops. Additionally, with advances in technology development, other traditional separate industries such as cable television, Voice-over IP (VoIP), and satellite providers offer similar competing features as the telephone companies to both residential and businesses leading to further evolution of corporate identity have taken shape.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Telecommunications policy of the United States</span>

The telecommunications policy of the United States is a framework of law directed by government and the regulatory commissions, most notably the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Two landmark acts prevail today, the Communications Act of 1934 and the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The latter was intended to revise the first act and specifically to foster competition in the telecommunications industry.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Demarcation point</span> Boundary of a private and public network

In telephony, the demarcation point is the point at which the public switched telephone network ends and connects with the customer's on-premises wiring. It is the dividing line which determines who is responsible for installation and maintenance of wiring and equipment—customer/subscriber, or telephone company/provider. The demarcation point varies between countries and has changed over time.

The United States Telecom Association (USTelecom) is an organization that represents telecommunications-related businesses based in the United States. As a trade association, it represent the converged interests of the country's telecommunications industry. Member companies represent a diverse set of communications-related businesses, including those that provide wireless, Internet, cable television, long distance, local exchange, and voice services. Members include large publicly traded communications carriers as well as small telephone cooperatives that serve only a few hundred customers in urban and rural areas. The organization was founded as the Independent Telephone Association of America in 1897, and represented the telecommunication industry of North America that was not affiliated with the Bell System led by the American Telephone and Telegraph Company (AT&T).

A naked DSL, also known as standalone or dry loop DSL, is a digital subscriber line (DSL) without a PSTN service — or the associated dial tone. In other words, only a standalone DSL Internet service is provided on the local loop.

A telecommunications tariff is an open contract between a telecommunications service provider and the public, filed with a regulating body such as state and municipal Public Utilities Commissions and federal entities such as the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Such tariffs outline the terms and conditions of providing telecommunications service to the public including rates, fees, and charges.

Northwestel Inc. is a Canadian telecommunications company that is the incumbent local exchange carrier (ILEC) and long-distance carrier in the territories of Yukon, the Northwest Territories, Nunavut, and part of Northern British Columbia. Originally established in 1979 by the Canadian National Railway from CN's northern telecommunications assets, it has been owned by BCE Inc. since 1988.

<i>Hush-A-Phone Corp. v. United States</i> 1956 United States federal court case

Hush-A-Phone v. United States, 238 F.2d 266 was a seminal ruling in United States telecommunications decided by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. Hush-A-Phone Corporation marketed a small, cup-like device which mounted on the speaking party's microphone, reducing the risk of conversations being overheard and increasing sound fidelity for the listening party. At the time, AT&T had a near-monopoly on America's phone system, even controlling the equipment attached to its network. In this era, Americans had to lease equipment from "Ma Bell" or use approved devices. At this time Hush-A-Phone had been around for 20 years without any issues. However, when an AT&T lawyer saw one in a store window, the company decided to sue on the grounds that anything attached to a phone could damage their network.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Breakup of the Bell System</span> 1982 U.S. government action to end AT&T Corps monopoly over telephone services

The monopoly position of the Bell System in the U.S. was ended on January 8, 1982, by a consent decree providing that AT&T Corporation would, as had been initially proposed by AT&T, relinquish control of the Bell Operating Companies, which had provided local telephone service in the United States. AT&T would continue to be a provider of long-distance service, while the now-independent Regional Bell Operating Companies (RBOCs), nicknamed the "Baby Bells", would provide local service, and would no longer be directly supplied with equipment from AT&T subsidiary Western Electric.

E-Rate is the commonly used name for the Schools and Libraries Program of the Universal Service Fund, which is administered by the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) under the direction of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The program provides discounts to assist schools and libraries in the United States to obtain affordable telecommunications and internet access. It is one of four support programs funded through a universal service fee charged to companies that provide interstate and/or international telecommunications services.

The Universal Service Fund (USF) is a system of telecommunications subsidies and fees managed by the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to promote universal access to telecommunications services in the United States. The FCC established the fund in 1997 in compliance with the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Originally designed to subsidize telephone service, since 2011 the fund has expanded its goals to supporting broadband universal service. The Universal Service Fund's budget ranges from $5–8 billion per year depending on the needs of the telecommunications providers. These needs include the cost to maintain the hardware needed for their services and the services themselves. In 2022 disbursements totaled $7.4 billion, split across the USF's four main programs: $2.1 billion for the E-rate program, $4.2 billion for the high-cost program, $0.6 billion for the Lifeline program, and $0.5 billion for the rural health care program.

Unbundled access is an often practiced form of regulation during liberalization, where new entrants of the market (challengers) are offered access to facilities of the incumbent that are hard to duplicate. Its applications are mostly found in network-oriented industries and often concerns the last mile.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Internet in the United States</span>

The Internet in the United States grew out of the ARPANET, a network sponsored by the Advanced Research Projects Agency of the U.S. Department of Defense during the 1960s. The Internet in the United States of America in turn provided the foundation for the worldwide Internet of today.

Network convergence refers to the provision of telephone, video and data communication services within a single network. In other words, one company provides services for all forms of communication. Network convergence is primarily driven by development of technology and demand. Users are able to access a wider range of services, choose among more service providers. On the other hand, convergence allows service providers to adopt new business models, offer innovative services, and enter new markets.

Broadband universal service, also known as universal service obligation (USO) or universal broadband service, refers to government efforts to ensure all citizens have access to the internet. Universal voice service obligations have been expanded to include broadband service obligations in Switzerland, Finland, Spain and the UK.

In the United States, the Federal Communications Commission Computer Inquiries were a trio of interrelated FCC Inquiries focused on problems posed by the convergence of regulated telephony with unregulated computing services. These Computer Inquiries created rules and requirements designed to prevent cross subsidization, discrimination, and anti-competitive behavior from companies such as Bell Operating Companies (BOCs) to enter the enhanced services market.

The history of AT&T dates back to the invention of the telephone. The Bell Telephone Company was established in 1877 by Alexander Graham Bell, who obtained the first US patent for the telephone, and his father-in-law, Gardiner Greene Hubbard. Bell and Hubbard also established American Telephone and Telegraph Company in 1885, which acquired the Bell Telephone Company and became the primary telephone company in the United States. This company maintained an effective monopoly on local telephone service in the United States until anti-trust regulators agreed to allow AT&T to retain Western Electric and enter general trades computer manufacture and sales in return for its offer to split the Bell System by divesting itself of ownership of the Bell Operating Companies in 1982.

References

  1. ↑ See the UK proposals in the Green Paper on Postal Services
  2. ↑ "At a glance". Universal Postal Union. Archived from the original on 2009-07-24. Retrieved 2009-06-14.
  3. 1 2 "Unnatural Monopoly: Critical Moments". Cato Institute . Retrieved 2009-06-14.
  4. 1 2 "AT&T Milestones in AT&T History". AT&T Inc. Retrieved 2009-06-14.
  5. ↑ "Cybertelecom :: Universal Service". Cybertelecom. Retrieved 2010-09-15.
  6. ↑ Cybertelecom :: AT&T History
  7. ↑ Aufderheide, Patricia (1999-01-15). Communications Policy and the Public Interest. New York: Guilford Press. ISBN   978-1-57230-425-3.
  8. ↑ Pub. L. Tooltip Public Law (United States)  73–416
  9. ↑ 47 U.S.C.   § 151
  10. ↑ Mueller, Milton (1997). "Universal service and the telecommunications act: myth made law" (PDF). Communications of the ACM. 40 (3): 39–47. doi:10.1145/245108.245119. ISSN   0001-0782. Archived from the original on 2017-11-11.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unfit URL (link)
  11. ↑ Mueller, Milton (1993). "Universal service in telephone history" (PDF). Telecommunications Policy. 17 (5). Elsevier BV: 352–369. doi:10.1016/0308-5961(93)90050-d. ISSN   0308-5961.
  12. ↑ Joanne D. Eustis (2000-04-07). AGENDA-SETTING THE UNIVERSAL SERVICE CASE (PhD). Virginia Tech. p. 95. Retrieved 2024-09-15.
  13. ↑ 47 U.S.C. § 254 Cornell University Law Library
  14. ↑ FCC: Universal Service
  15. ↑ Courtesy, Professor James Alleman, University of Colorado at Boulder, Network Economics and Finance I, Lecture 24
  16. ↑ FCC Lifeline
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.