Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Local exchange carrier

A local exchange carrier (LEC) is any person or entity engaged in the provision of service or exchange access within the , encompassing the local infrastructure that connects customer premises to the (PSTN). LECs manage essential functions such as local call routing, numbering, and the "last mile" physical loops of , , or other media linking end-users to central offices or switches. Primarily a regulatory under , LECs operate in defined geographic areas known as local access and transport areas (LATAs), historically shaped by the 1984 divestiture and subsequent reforms. LECs are divided into incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs), the original providers that held monopolies in their regions before the , and competitive local exchange carriers (CLECs), newer entrants authorized to lease ILEC infrastructure or deploy their own to offer alternative local services. This distinction arose to promote market competition, requiring ILECs to unbundle network elements for CLECs while preserving obligations. Although LECs were foundational to wireline , their role has evolved with the rise of , VoIP, and technologies, shifting focus toward data services and regulatory adaptation to maintain in rural and underserved areas.

Definition and Classification

Definition

A local exchange carrier (LEC) is a provider engaged in the provision of telephone exchange service or exchange access within a designated geographic area, typically handling the connection between customer premises and the (PSTN). This role encompasses the local loop infrastructure, which links end-user telephones to central offices, enabling intra-exchange calls without traversing long-distance facilities. LECs operate under regulatory oversight, primarily at the federal level by the (FCC), and are distinct from interexchange carriers (IXCs), which manage toll calls between different local exchanges or local access and transport areas (LATAs). The statutory definition originates from the , as amended by the , specifying that an LEC includes any person providing such services but excludes commercial mobile radio service (CMRS) providers, such as cellular carriers. In practice, LECs maintain the physical and operational framework for local telephony, including switching, signaling, and access to the PSTN, often through wireline facilities like or fiber-optic cables. This delineation ensures that local service obligations, such as provisioning and numbering administration, fall under LEC responsibilities, subject to tariffs and mandates. Historically rooted in the post-divestiture era following the breakup of the Bell System, the LEC framework formalized the separation of local from long-distance operations to foster competition while preserving local service reliability. As of 2025, LECs continue to adapt to convergence, with many integrating (VoIP) and fiber-to-the-premises (FTTP) technologies, though core regulatory definitions remain tied to traditional exchange services.

Types of Local Exchange Carriers

Incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs) represent the original providers of local telephone exchange service in designated geographic areas prior to market liberalization. These carriers, which include the Regional Bell Operating Companies formed after the 1984 divestiture and various independent telephone companies, historically operated under regulated conditions and own the majority of legacy copper-based infrastructure across the . The (FCC) defines an ILEC as the entity providing telephone exchange service—or equivalent service via commercial mobile radio service—in a specific geographic area as of February 8, 1996, the enactment date of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. ILECs bear statutory obligations such as unbundling network elements for competitors and maintaining , reflecting their entrenched position and infrastructure dominance. Competitive local exchange carriers (CLECs), in contrast, are post-deregulation entrants authorized to provide local exchange services in competition with ILECs. CLECs typically do not own comprehensive legacy infrastructure but instead resell ILEC services, lease unbundled network elements under Section 251 of the Communications Act, or deploy their own facilities-based networks, often focusing on high-density urban areas or specialized services like VoIP integration. This classification emerged directly from the 1996 Act's intent to foster competition by requiring ILECs to interconnect and provide access to rivals, enabling CLECs to capture market share through lower pricing or bundled offerings. As of 2024, CLECs serve approximately 10-15% of the local voice market, with growth driven by fiber and wireless alternatives, though they face challenges from ILEC pricing pressures and regulatory shifts favoring facilities-based deployment. While the ILEC-CLEC dichotomy forms the core regulatory framework, some analyses distinguish rural ILECs—smaller, independent operators serving less populated areas under enhanced protections—from larger urban-focused ILECs like or . CLECs may further subdivide into resale-based models (pure resellers without owned facilities) and facilities-based CLECs that invest in partial infrastructure, such as loops, to reduce dependency on incumbents. These variations underscore the evolution from monopoly-era service to a hybrid competitive landscape, where ILECs retain about 85% of lines but face erosion from CLECs and over-the-top voice providers.

Historical Development

Origins in the Bell System Monopoly

The local exchange carriers within the originated from the rapid commercialization of the telephone following Alexander Graham Bell's patent in 1876. The was formed in July 1877 by Bell, Thomas Sanders, and Gardiner Hubbard to manage patent interests and license regional operators for local service delivery. These early licensees constructed and operated s—central switching facilities connecting subscribers via local loops—establishing the foundational for local . The world's first commercial opened on January 28, 1878, in , under the District Telephone Company, which later became the Southern New England Telephone Company. By 1880, the American Bell Telephone Company was incorporated in , overseeing a growing of associated operating companies that provided exclusive territories under Bell's protection, which lasted until 1894. After expiration, independent telephone firms proliferated, operating over 3,000 companies by 1900 and capturing 51 percent of markets by 1907 through aggressive price competition. American Telephone and Telegraph (), formed in 1885 to handle long-distance services and becoming the parent by December 31, 1899, pursued acquisitions to reconsolidate control, reversing independents' gains to achieve 55 percent market share by 1914. The 1913 Kingsbury Commitment, an out-of-court antitrust settlement on December 19, marked a pivotal stabilization of Bell's dominance. AT&T Vice President Nathan Kingsbury pledged to divest shares, refrain from acquiring independent local companies without regulatory approval, and permit interconnection of independents to AT&T's long-distance network, ostensibly fostering competition while preserving Bell's core local operations. This agreement, coupled with World War I-era in 1918—which granted AT&T favorable rate adjustments—and the 1934 Communications Act establishing the , entrenched a regulated framework. Local Bell Operating Companies, numbering around 22 by the mid-20th century, thus evolved as vertically integrated subsidiaries handling subscriber access and switching, serving over 85 percent of U.S. local telephone lines under government-sanctioned exclusivity by the 1970s.

1984 AT&T Divestiture and Regional Bell Operating Companies

The antitrust lawsuit United States v. AT&T, filed in 1974, challenged the American Telephone and Telegraph Company's (AT&T) control over local telephone services as part of its broader monopoly. On August 24, 1982, AT&T and the U.S. Department of Justice reached a settlement known as the Modified Final Judgment (MFJ), which required AT&T to divest its 22 wholly owned Bell Operating Companies (BOCs) responsible for local exchange services. The divestiture took effect on January 1, 1984, restructuring the Bell System by separating AT&T's competitive long-distance operations, research (Bell Laboratories), and manufacturing (Western Electric) from the local service providers. The 22 BOCs were consolidated into seven Regional Bell Operating Companies (RBOCs), commonly called "Baby Bells," each serving specific geographic regions and functioning as incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs) with monopoly rights over local loops, switches, and access to end-user lines. The RBOCs were: Ameritech (serving Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin); Bell Atlantic (New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, and Washington, D.C.); BellSouth (southern states including Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Florida, Alabama, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Tennessee); NYNEX (New York and New England states); Pacific Telesis (California and Nevada); Southwestern Bell (Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Texas); and US West (western states including Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Iowa, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming). These entities retained the obligation to provide universal local telephone service under state regulation, while the MFJ barred them from offering interLATA long-distance services or manufacturing telecommunications equipment without federal approval, aiming to prevent cross-subsidization and promote competition in non-local markets. Post-divestiture, the RBOCs controlled approximately 80% of U.S. local telephone lines, numbering over 100 million lines, and collected billions in annual charges from long-distance carriers like to terminate calls on their networks. This structure preserved regulated monopolies for local exchange services, as the RBOCs faced no direct for basic dial-tone provision in their territories, though they enabled for emerging competitive access providers. The separation increased long-distance by removing AT&T's control over local bottlenecks, but local rates rose in many areas due to the elimination of cross-subsidies from long-distance revenues, prompting debates over the net consumer welfare effects. Over time, RBOCs pursued mergers and expansions, but the framework initially limited their scope to intrastate local operations.

Telecommunications Act of 1996 and Emergence of Competition

The , signed into law by President on February 8, 1996, sought to foster competition in local telecommunications markets by dismantling remaining barriers from the post-1984 regulatory framework. The Act amended the , imposing duties on incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs) under Section 251 to negotiate agreements with new entrants, provide access to unbundled network elements (UNEs) such as loops and switches at total element long-run incremental cost (TELRIC), and offer retail services for resale at discounted wholesale rates. These obligations aimed to lower entry barriers for competitive local exchange carriers (CLECs), enabling them to serve customers without building full duplicate , though implementation involved extensive state commission arbitrations and federal oversight by the FCC. Section 252 facilitated the process by requiring ILECs to submit interconnection agreements for state commission approval if negotiations failed, while Section 271 allowed regional Bell operating companies (RBOCs, a of ILECs) to enter interLATA long-distance markets upon demonstrating compliance with a 14-point competitive , including evidence of market opening. This created incentives for ILECs to cooperate with competitors to gain long-distance approval, as RBOCs like Bell Atlantic (later ) achieved such entry in by December 1999 after FCC review. The Act also phased down access charges paid by long-distance carriers to ILECs, redirecting some revenues toward funds to mitigate ILEC losses from local . CLECs emerged rapidly post-1996, with over 100 entering markets by 1997 via UNE-platform services, resale, or partial facilities buildout, capturing niches in business lines where demand for advanced features was higher. By the end of 1998, CLECs served approximately 4.3 million lines, representing 2.4% of the total local market, with growth accelerating to 6.9% (12 million lines) by mid-2000 amid the dot-com boom. However, competition remained concentrated in urban areas and business segments, as residential penetration lagged due to high UNE costs, interconnection disputes, and ILEC resistance, evidenced by over 1,000 lawsuits filed in the first two years challenging FCC rules. Empirical analyses indicate modest price reductions in local rates—averaging 2-5% in competitive areas—but overall market share gains stalled after 2001, with many CLECs failing amid the telecom bust and stricter FCC unbundling limits in 2003-2005 that prioritized facilities-based entry. Despite the Act's intent, causal factors like ILEC network control and regulatory complexity limited widespread , as CLECs often depended on ILEC , leading to inefficiencies and bankruptcies exceeding 50% of entrants by 2003; this outcome underscores how mandated sharing, while enabling initial entry, failed to replicate the efficiencies of in a capital-intensive . By 2003, local wireline had grown slower than anticipated, with ILECs retaining over 90% of lines, though the framework laid groundwork for later shifts toward and IP-based alternatives.

Services and Technical Operations

Core Local Exchange Services

Core local exchange services encompass the fundamental voice telephony functions provided by local exchange carriers (LECs) to enable communication among end-users within a designated geographic area, typically a or local calling area. These services center on service, federally defined as the offering of access to facilities within a or connected system of exchanges in the same area to facilitate local inter-subscriber communication, excluding toll (long-distance) service. This includes the provision of an access line—such as a twisted-pair loop or equivalent—for originating and terminating calls limited to the local exchange boundaries, ensuring connectivity via the (PSTN). LECs deliver these services through central office switches that route calls based on assigned telephone numbers within the exchange. Basic local exchange service, often the entry-level offering, grants subscribers the ability to make and receive unlimited or metered calls within their calling area, typically encompassing a radius of 10-12 miles around the central office or as defined by regulators. For residential users, this service operates over a single line or , supporting standard analog transmission at frequencies optimized for speech (300-3400 Hz), though modern deployments may incorporate formats like TDM for improved reliability. Business variants may include multi-line trunks or (PRI) for higher capacity, but core functionality remains focused on connectivity without bundled advanced features like , which are considered optional enhancements. Ancillary components integral to core service include access to operator assistance for call completion or billing inquiries, and (typically 411) for retrieving local listings, both historically provided via live operators but increasingly automated. Emergency services, such as (E911), form a mandated element, routing calls to public safety answering points with automatic location identification where feasible, ensuring universal availability regardless of service tier. These elements fulfill the LEC's role in maintaining a baseline network for voice communications, with incumbent LECs (ILECs) bearing carrier-of-last-resort duties to serve all eligible locations in their territory. While core services emphasize voice, LECs also facilitate exchange access, switching local calls to interexchange carriers (IXCs) for toll traffic via equal access protocols established post-1984 divestiture, though this interfaces with rather than constitutes local service proper. Pricing for basic service has historically been regulated at flat monthly rates—e.g., around $15-20 for residential in many areas as of the early —subject to state commissions, with transitions to competition allowing market-based rates for competitive LECs (CLECs) while preserving subsidized access for .

Infrastructure and Network Operations

Local exchange carriers operate extensive physical infrastructure centered on central offices, which are facilities housing switching equipment to route calls and interconnect subscriber lines within defined geographic areas known as local access and transport areas (LATAs). These offices typically contain Class 5 end-office switches for terminating local calls and tandem switches for aggregating traffic between offices, enabling efficient circuit-switched voice transmission over the (PSTN). The , or , connects central offices to end-user premises via copper twisted-pair wiring for traditional (), supporting voice-grade loops with bandwidth limited to approximately 4 kHz per channel, though (DSL) overlays extend capabilities for data. Increasingly, are deployed in the loop plant—such as fiber-to-the-curb or fiber-to-the-node configurations—to provide higher-capacity services, with offering multi-gigabit speeds over distances exceeding 20 km without significant , contrasting copper's limits beyond 5-6 km without . LECs maintain copper infrastructure for reliability in rural areas, but regulatory shifts, including the FCC's 2020 elimination of unbundling mandates for voice-grade loops, reflect a transition toward for integration. Network operations involve real-time call processing, fault detection, and provisioning, with switches using signaling systems like SS7 for setup, teardown, and routing decisions based on dialed numbers and availability. LECs monitor elements for performance, employing operations systems to handle , such as loop testing for line faults and automated rerouting during outages, ensuring carrier-of-last-resort obligations for basic service continuity. Interconnection points at central offices facilitate traffic with interexchange carriers via s, with operations adhering to FCC-mandated unbundled element access for loops and where requires it, though many such obligations have been phased out post-1996 Act to promote investment in modern packet-switched overlays.

Regulation and Legal Obligations

Federal Regulatory Framework

The (FCC), established by the , holds primary authority over interstate and foreign communications, including the regulation of local exchange carriers (LECs) for services involving interstate transmission. This Act, codified in Title 47 of the U.S. Code, classifies telephone exchange service and exchange access provided by LECs as telecommunications services subject to Title II obligations, requiring just and reasonable rates, nondiscriminatory practices, and public interest protections. LECs must file tariffs for regulated services and comply with FCC reporting requirements, such as Form 477 for facilities-based data, to ensure transparency in network deployment and service quality. The amended the 1934 Act to foster competition in local markets previously dominated by incumbent LECs (ILECs), mandating with competitors' networks on reasonable terms, unbundled to network elements, and resale of services at wholesale rates under Section 251. ILECs face heightened duties, including negotiation of agreements subject to FCC arbitration and of competitors' equipment in central offices, while competitive LECs (CLECs) benefit from these rights without reciprocal obligations. The FCC enforces these through rulemaking, such as for ILECs serving over 80% of lines, which limits rate increases to minus factors, and rate-of-return regulation for smaller rural carriers. Federal oversight extends to jurisdictional separations, allocating LEC costs between federal (interstate) and state (intrastate) jurisdictions to determine recoverable expenses via access charges paid by interexchange carriers for originating or terminating calls. LECs also contribute to the Universal Service Fund based on interstate end-user revenues, funding programs like high-cost support for rural deployment, with the FCC adjusting contribution factors quarterly—e.g., 33.0% in the first quarter of 2023—to reflect demand. Violations, such as unreasonable access stimulation practices, trigger enforcement actions, including traffic pumping prohibitions updated in 2022 to curb artificial call inflation for revenue. Recent FCC orders, like the 2023 rural call completion rules, further mandate LECs to route and deliver 911 and other calls reliably, with non-compliance risking fines up to $23,000 per day.

State-Level Duties and Oversight

State public utility commissions (PUCs) in the United States hold primary responsibility for overseeing local exchange carriers (LECs) with respect to intrastate telecommunications services, including retail local exchange rates, , and carrier certification where does not apply. This authority stems from state statutes delegating regulatory powers to PUCs to protect consumers from unjust rates and inadequate service while fostering competition in non-monopolistic markets. PUCs regulate basic local exchange service rates primarily through mechanisms such as price caps, alternative plans requiring commitments to advanced services deployment, or traditional rate-of-return models for rural LECs that have not opted for ; for example, many states maintain oversight over smaller carriers serving high-cost areas to ensure affordability. standards enforced by PUCs include mandatory performance metrics for installation intervals, trouble resolution times, and outage notifications, with penalties for noncompliance to maintain reliable access to like dialing. Certification processes under PUC jurisdiction require LECs, including incumbents, to demonstrate financial and technical capability before operating, often via certificates of and , and include ongoing compliance monitoring for issues such as billing disputes and service discontinuations. States also oversee intrastate wholesale obligations, such as provisioning unbundled network elements and access services for competitive local exchange carriers, ensuring fair terms within state boundaries. Additionally, PUCs manage state funds, designating eligible carriers for intrastate support to extend service to underserved areas, distinct from programs. Regulatory approaches vary by state—for instance, PUCs focus on incumbent LEC compliance in designated territories, while others like emphasize provider-of-last-resort obligations—but collectively prioritize balancing consumer safeguards with incentives for infrastructure investment amid declining traditional voice usage.

Universal Service and Carrier-of-Last-Resort Mandates

Local exchange carriers, especially incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs), bear primary responsibility for fulfilling obligations, which mandate the provision of telecommunications services at reasonable and affordable rates to all consumers, including those in high-cost or rural areas. These principles were codified in the , amending the to define as an evolving level of services including voice telephony, access to emergency services, and, over time, capabilities where feasible. The Act requires the (FCC) to establish and periodically review support mechanisms, ensuring comparable rates between urban and rural areas through subsidies rather than direct rate regulation. Funding for these obligations derives from the Universal Service Fund (USF), supported by mandatory contributions from providers of interstate telecommunications services, calculated as a percentage of their end-user revenues (typically 30-33% since 2012). ILECs designated as Eligible Telecommunications Carriers (ETCs) by state commissions receive disbursements from USF programs such as the High-Cost program, which provided over $4.3 billion in 2023 to support deployment and maintenance in underserved areas. ETC status imposes build-out requirements, such as connecting at least 85% of unserved locations in funded areas by specific deadlines (e.g., December 2025 for Connect America Fund Phase II auctions), with non-compliance risking support forfeiture. States may supplement federal support with their own funds, but federal rules preempt inconsistent state measures. Carrier-of-last-resort (COLR) mandates, primarily enforced at the state level, require designated LECs—usually ILECs—to serve as the default provider of basic local exchange service to any requesting customer within their territory, irrespective of location, creditworthiness, or economic viability. Originating from pre-1996 state policies to ensure ubiquitous wireline access, these duties persisted post-deregulation, with states like and defining COLR as an obligation to deliver voice service , often tied to historical franchises granting exclusivity in exchange for service guarantees. The 1996 Act integrated COLR with federal support by allowing states to designate multiple ETCs, but COLR remains singular per area to avoid service gaps, obligating carriers to maintain infrastructure for basic service even as competition erodes market share. Failure to comply can result in state penalties or revocation of designation, though permits discontinuation under Section 214 with FCC approval if alternatives exist.

Economic Impacts and Market Dynamics

Transition from Monopoly to Competition

The 1984 divestiture of AT&T under the Modified Final Judgment preserved monopolies for the Regional Bell Operating Companies (RBOCs) in local exchange services, as these incumbents retained exclusive control over the "last mile" copper loops connecting customers to switching facilities, creating high barriers to entry for potential competitors due to the enormous sunk costs of duplicating this infrastructure. This structure limited economic incentives for new investment in local networks, with RBOCs facing regulated rates of return that discouraged efficiency gains while cross-subsidies from long-distance access charges kept basic local rates artificially low but insulated from market pressures. Long-distance competition flourished post-divestiture, with prices falling over 70% in real terms by 2006, but local service prices remained stable or rose modestly, as evidenced by a 12.1% increase in local rates from 1996 to 2001 compared to a 12.5% rise in the Consumer Price Index. The sought to accelerate the transition by mandating interconnection, unbundled network elements (UNEs), and resale obligations for incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs), enabling competitive local exchange carriers (CLECs) to enter markets without full infrastructure duplication. However, economic outcomes fell short of expectations: CLECs captured only about 6.7% of access lines by mid-2000 and around 12-15% of revenues by the early , largely through resale of ILEC services rather than facilities-based competition, which added minimal net social output. ILECs maintained 87-88% market dominance in both revenues and lines as of 2003, reflecting the causal reality that the high fixed costs of local loops—estimated at billions per region—deterred widespread replication, while regulatory disputes over UNE pricing eroded CLEC viability. Economically, the partial competition spurred some innovation in business and data services in urban areas but failed to materially lower residential voice prices or drive broad infrastructure upgrades, as CLECs' reliance on ILEC networks incentivized arbitrage over investment, leading to over 100 CLEC bankruptcies post-2000 dot-com bust. Access charge reforms reduced intercarrier payments from $18 billion in 1996 to under $1 billion by 2011, shifting revenue models but exposing ILECs to losses without commensurate competitive gains in core local exchange markets. Overall, the transition highlighted the tension between regulatory mandates and market economics, where mandated access often preserved ILEC dominance rather than fostering true rivalry, resulting in welfare losses from inefficient resale and delayed facilities deployment.

Interconnection, Access Charges, and Revenue Sharing

Incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs) are obligated under Section 251 of the Communications Act, as amended by the , to their networks with requesting telecommunications carriers, including competitive local exchange carriers (CLECs), at any technically feasible point. This duty requires ILECs to negotiate agreements in , establishing rates, terms, and conditions that are just, reasonable, nondiscriminatory, and cost-based, often determined through by commissions if negotiations fail. enables the exchange of local traffic, supporting competition by allowing CLECs to originate and terminate calls on ILEC facilities without owning end-to-end infrastructure. Access charges represent compensation paid by interexchange carriers (IXCs) to LECs for originating or terminating interstate toll calls using the LEC's local loops and switching facilities. regulates interstate access charges under Part 69 of its rules, which originated in the to recover non-traffic-sensitive costs but embedded implicit subsidies that distorted competition. Reforms began in 1997 with the FCC's First Report and Order on Access Charge Reform, initiating gradual rate reductions and rebalancing to explicit mechanisms, with interstate access rates dropping from approximately $0.039 per minute in 1997 to near-zero for many services by 2021 under bill-and-keep regimes for non-access traffic. Intrastate access charges remain under state jurisdiction, though FCC rules influence parity through intercarrier compensation reforms. Access stimulation practices, where high-volume traffic generators like free conference calls prompted LECs to inflate rates via revenue-sharing deals with IXCs, led to 2011 FCC rules mandating rate reductions and traffic labeling to curb , with violations resulting in liability shifts to the stimulating party. Revenue sharing in LEC contexts primarily manifests through intercarrier compensation mechanisms in agreements, where terminating carriers receive payments for handling traffic from originating networks, often on a per-minute basis for local or intraMTA traffic exceeding defined thresholds. For toll traffic, this aligns with access charge payments, but local reciprocity rules under Section 251(b) prohibit ILECs from imposing charges on CLECs for terminating their traffic while requiring mutual compensation for imbalanced flows. The FCC's 2001 and subsequent reforms transitioned much local traffic to bill-and-keep, eliminating payments to minimize disputes, though rate-of-return LECs retain limited revenue-sharing agreements subject to caps, such as 0.5% of end-user revenues for certain IP-enabled services. These arrangements have faced scrutiny for incentivizing artificial traffic generation, prompting ongoing FCC efforts to unify compensation and eliminate residual opportunities as of 2023.

Controversies and Criticisms

Regulatory Barriers to Innovation and Investment

Legacy regulations imposed on incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs), such as rate-of-return pricing, have historically reduced incentives for by guaranteeing a fixed on invested regardless of gains or cost reductions. Under this framework, ILECs recover allowable costs plus a predetermined , which discourages investments in productivity-enhancing technologies since excess profits from innovations are typically captured by regulators through rate adjustments rather than retained by the firm. Empirical analyses indicate that cost-based , including rate-of-return mechanisms prevalent in the U.S. sector until the 1990s, exerted substantial negative effects on during its dominance, as firms lacked strong motivations to minimize costs or deploy advanced beyond regulatory mandates. Unbundling requirements under the further exacerbate these barriers by mandating that ILECs provide competitors access to their networks at regulated prices, often below forward-looking costs, thereby diminishing the returns on new investments in fiber-optic or next-generation networks. This "free option" effect—where entrants benefit from ILEC-built infrastructure without bearing risks—has been shown to suppress ILEC expenditures, as the anticipated regulatory of rewards leads to underinvestment in facilities like high-speed loops. For instance, total service long-run incremental cost (TSLRIC) pricing, enforced by the FCC, transfers value from incumbents to resellers, resulting in lower overall network upgrades and slower adoption of technologies such as dense . Universal service obligations and contributions to the (USF) impose additional financial burdens, requiring ILECs to subsidize service in high-cost rural areas while diverting revenues from competitive urban deployments, which distorts priorities toward maintaining legacy networks over transitions. As of 2024, USF mechanisms—intended to promote access—have been criticized for inefficiency, with duplicative subsidies overlapping private investments and effectively acting as a revenue tax that hampers scalable infrastructure projects. State and local regulatory hurdles, including protracted permitting processes for pole attachments and rights-of-way, compound these issues; FCC reports from 2018 highlighted how such barriers delay rollout by months or years, increasing deployment costs by up to 20-30% in some jurisdictions and deterring private capital in wireline upgrades. Recent FCC initiatives, such as the 2025 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on reducing barriers to next-generation , acknowledge these constraints by proposing from outdated rules to encourage , signaling that persistent legacy obligations continue to impede the shift from voice-centric LEC models to IP-based services. Despite partial via price caps since the late , ILEC capital expenditures in wireline have stagnated relative to peers, with regulatory uncertainty cited as a primary deterrent to overbuilds in competitive markets.

Inefficiencies in Universal Service Subsidies

The Fund (USF) provides high-cost support to local exchange carriers (LECs), particularly and rural providers, to subsidize service in areas where deployment costs exceed typical urban rates, aiming to maintain affordable access under carrier-of-last-resort obligations. These subsidies, totaling approximately $4.3 billion annually for the high-cost program as of recent years, were historically disbursed based on carriers' reported embedded costs under rate-of-return regulation, which incentivized LECs to inflate expenses to maximize funding. An econometric analysis of over 1,400 LECs from 1998 to 2008 found that each dollar in high-cost subsidies increased general and administrative expenses by about $0.59, diverting funds from to overhead such as personnel and rather than reducing consumer rates. This cost inflation persisted pre-2012 reforms, with per-line support payments reaching medians of $361 and averages of $649 in 2008, and some rural lines exceeding $20,000 annually, far outpacing actual deployment efficiencies achievable through competitive technologies like . The Communications Commission's Office of identified $1 billion in erroneous high-cost payments for 2007-2008 alone, representing 23.3% of disbursements, due to misreporting and inadequate verification. Post-reform shifts to models like the Connect America Fund and reverse auctions sought to introduce competitive bidding, yet optional participation for rate-of-return carriers allows continued cost-based support, perpetuating inefficiencies where subsidized wireline deployments overlap with cheaper alternatives, such as or costing $75-125 monthly versus $200 per line for . Effectiveness metrics underscore poor returns: only 55% of subsidized addresses receive service, with just 33% meeting minimum speeds, despite USF high-cost outlays comprising nearly half of the Fund's $8-10 billion annual total. These distortions arise from subsidies shielding inefficient LECs from market pressures, discouraging investment in lower-cost technologies and enabling overbuilding in overlapping territories. Fraud and waste compound issues, with documented cases including a $100 million scheme uncovered in 2024 and a $31 million in for misuse by providers. The Service Administrative Company has doubled staff in some programs to combat , but operating costs rose 27.5% from 2018 to 2023 amid persistent challenges in oversight. Overall, high-cost subsidies subsidize provider inefficiencies more than access, as evidenced by stagnant rural penetration relative to expenditures that have ballooned 215% inflation-adjusted since 1995.

Recent Deregulation Initiatives and Ongoing Debates

In August 2025, the (FCC) adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposing to eliminate rate regulation and tariffing requirements for legacy circuit-based business data services (), such as T1 and DS3 lines, provided by price-cap local exchange carriers (ILECs). This initiative builds on prior deregulatory steps, including the 2020 detariffing mandate for competitive LECs, aiming to reflect increased market competition from providers and alternatives while reducing regulatory burdens on ILECs transitioning from legacy . The proposal maintains oversight for rate-of-return ILECs in rural areas but seeks public input on potential forbearance under Section 10 of the Communications Act, with comments due by October 2025. At the state level, efforts have intensified around carrier-of-last-resort (COLR) obligations, which require ILECs to maintain basic voice service in designated areas. In April 2025, leaders from 21 s urged or reform of outdated COLR mandates, arguing they hinder deployments by forcing retention of obsolete networks amid viable substitutes like and VoIP services. exemplifies this trend, where petitioned in 2024 to withdraw COLR status for customers, citing investment disincentives, prompting legislative proposals like AB 2721 to allow opt-outs where alternatives exist. Similar reforms in states like and have enabled ILECs to sunset legacy services, with regulators conditioning relief on successor availability. Ongoing debates center on balancing deregulation's potential to spur infrastructure investment against risks to universal service reliability. Proponents, including industry groups like USTelecom, contend that relicensing ILECs from unbundling and resale mandates—echoing unresolved 2018 forbearance petitions—fosters competition and innovation, as evidenced by stagnant rural broadband progress under persistent regulations. Critics, such as public advocates, warn that easing COLR duties could exacerbate service gaps for low-income and hard-to-reach customers, particularly where wireless coverage lags, potentially increasing reliance on inefficient federal subsidies like the Universal Service Fund, which exceeded $8 billion annually by 2024 without commensurate deployment gains. These tensions highlight broader scrutiny of Section 214 discontinuance rules, with the FCC's 2025 network improvement NPRM exploring streamlined approvals for service transitions to IP-based systems. Empirical data from states granting targeted forbearance show accelerated fiber mileage—up 15-20% in reformed jurisdictions—yet underscore the need for evidence-based metrics to prevent monopolistic pricing post-deregulation.

References

  1. [1]
    47 U.S. Code § 153 - Definitions - Law.Cornell.Edu
    The term “local exchange carrier” means any person that is engaged in the ... The term “telecommunications carrier” means any provider of telecommunications ...<|separator|>
  2. [2]
    47 CFR 61.3 -- Definitions. - eCFR
    (w) Local exchange carrier. Any person that is engaged in the provision of telephone exchange service or exchange access as defined in section 3(26) of the Act.
  3. [3]
    [PDF] Glossary of Terms Used in FCC Form 477 Instructions
    Sep 10, 2014 · Incumbent local exchange carrier (incumbent LEC, or ILEC): The company that was providing telephone exchange service (local phone service) in a ...
  4. [4]
    ILEC vs CLEC: Understanding the Options for Telco Services
    Mar 21, 2024 · ILEC - (Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers) telephone companies that held a regional monopoly on providing local service when the ...
  5. [5]
    Understanding Local Exchange Carriers - 123NET
    Jan 12, 2024 · Local Exchange Carriers (LECs) are telecommunications service providers responsible for local and regional network connectivity.
  6. [6]
    Telecommunications Carrier Types with Definition
    LEC. Local Exchange Carrier. A wireline telephone company that provides local telecommunications services under regulation within a specified service area.
  7. [7]
    47 CFR § 64.4001 - Definitions. - Law.Cornell.Edu
    The term local exchange carrier means any person that is engaged in the provision of telephone exchange service or exchange access. Such term does not include a ...
  8. [8]
    Local Exchange Carrier (LEC): Definition and Telecom Role
    Jun 10, 2025 · Local Exchange Carrier (LEC): Learn how LECs provide local telecom services and connect customers with Bandwidth.
  9. [9]
    Local Exchange Carrier - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics
    The 1996 Act defines the term local exchange carrier (LEC) as “any person that is engaged in the provision of telephone exchange service or exchange access.
  10. [10]
    47 CFR § 51.903 - Definitions. - Law.Cornell.Edu
    A Competitive Local Exchange Carrier is any local exchange carrier, as defined in § 51.5, that is not an incumbent local exchange carrier.
  11. [11]
    47 CFR 54.5 -- Terms and definitions. - eCFR
    A “telecommunications carrier” is any provider of telecommunications services, except that such term does not include aggregators of telecommunications services ...
  12. [12]
    Competitive Local Exchange Carrier (CLEC) - Bandwidth
    Jun 10, 2025 · CLECs are local voice service carriers that are authorized to interconnect their local network with the Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN).What Is A Clec? · How Clecs Work: The Local... · Benefits Of Clecs<|separator|>
  13. [13]
    8 Telecom Terms You Should Know when Working with Carriers
    ILEC. Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers are the companies that originally provided service in the local area before unbundling took place after 1996. Typically ...
  14. [14]
    Difference Between ILEC and CLEC: Which One to Choose?
    ILECs are also known as incumbents, tier-one providers, or phone companies, while CLECs are the phone company's competitors; they're tier two providers or ...
  15. [15]
    Incumbent Local Exchange Carrier - Sinch
    ILECs are essentially tier 1 suppliers, and CLECs are tier 2. Competitive LECs often offer more attractive pricing or include special features like cloud ...<|separator|>
  16. [16]
    Telephone Company Histories
    The Bell System's history stretches back to 1876, with founder Alexander Graham Bell's invention of the telephone. Bell, Thomas Sanders, and Gardiner G. Hubbard ...
  17. [17]
    [PDF] Critical Moments In The Development Of The Bell System Monopoly
    It appears AT&T's only claim to monopoly power prior to this period could be attributed to their numerous patents, not superior economies of scale as the ...
  18. [18]
    [PDF] historical perspectives on competition and interconnection between ...
    Until 1894 the American Bell Telephone Company and its licensed operating companies enjoyed a complete monopoly over the markets for telephone equipment and ...<|separator|>
  19. [19]
    100th Anniversary of the Kingsbury Commitment - Public Knowledge
    Dec 19, 2013 · In the Kingsbury Commitment, AT&T agreed to allow independent local telephone companies to interconnect with AT&T's long distance network, ...
  20. [20]
    [PDF] The Breakup of the Bell System and its Impact on US Innovation*
    Sep 5, 2022 · It controlled more than 85% of all local telephone services through its. Bell Operating Companies; it had a market share of over 85% in long- ...
  21. [21]
    The Breakup of "Ma Bell": United States v. AT&T
    Referred to colloquially as “Ma Bell” beginning in the 1960s, AT&T completely dominated the telecommunications industry in the United States. AT&T logo with ...
  22. [22]
    Bell Operating Companies - Bell System Memorial
    ... 1984, there were 22 Bell Operating Companies owned by AT&T: Click on ... (not listed in Appendix A of the Modified Final Judgement). Pacific Telesis ...
  23. [23]
    RBOCs (Regional Bell Operating Companies) - Linktionary.com
    MFJ ended the Justice Department's suit against AT&T. The RBOCs were organized into seven regional Bell holding companies called Ameritech, Bell Atlantic, Bell ...
  24. [24]
    Lessons from the AT&T Break Up, 30 Years Later
    Jan 3, 2014 · AT&T on January 1 1984 became a long-distance company, while seven regional Bell Operating Companies (RBOCs) took control of the nation's local phone networks.
  25. [25]
    Was the 1996 Telecommunications Act successful in promoting ...
    Feb 8, 2016 · Until the Telecommunications Act of 1996, regulation ensured that these industries could not go head-to-head against each other for customers.
  26. [26]
    Telecommunications Act of 1996 - Congress.gov
    ``(i) Availability to Other Telecommunications Carriers.--A local exchange carrier shall make available any interconnection, service, or network element ...
  27. [27]
    [PDF] Telecommunications Act of 1996
    `(i) AVAILABILITY TO OTHER TELECOMMUNICATIONS CARRIERS- A local exchange carrier shall make available any interconnection, service, or network element provided ...
  28. [28]
    The Telecommunications Act of 1996 in the Twenty-first Century
    Feb 5, 2013 · Section 251 of the '96 Act requires incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs) to permit interconnection at “any technically feasible point ...
  29. [29]
    Telecommunications Act of 1996 | Federal Communications ...
    Jun 20, 2013 · This page will include information listing the proceedings the FCC will complete to open up local phone markets, increase competition in long ...
  30. [30]
    The 1996 Telecom Act Three Years Later - Brookings Institution
    The pace of entry has accelerated, but it is still slow. At the end of the third quarter of 1998, the CLECs had about 2.4 percent of local lines (4.3 million ...Missing: statistics | Show results with:statistics
  31. [31]
    [PDF] The State of Competition in the Telecommunications Marketplace ...
    May 5, 2015 · The Act provided for three different distinct avenues of competitive entry into the local exchange for a competitor to use separately or in ...
  32. [32]
    Impact of the Telecommunications Act 1996 on Local Telephone ...
    Jul 15, 2012 · Key findings are that the Telecommunications Act 1996 reduced local residential and business monthly telephone rates and connection charges, ...Missing: telephony | Show results with:telephony
  33. [33]
    "Competitive Debacle in Local Telephony: Is the 1996 ...
    Surprisingly and ironically, the unbundling provisions have decimated the competitive local exchange carriers (“CLECs”)—the very people the regulations were ...
  34. [34]
    [PDF] The Failure of Competition Under the 1996 Telecommunications Act
    The 1996 Act failed to create competition, leading to few choices and high prices due to telephone and cable companies killing it. Consumers have little choice.
  35. [35]
    [PDF] Lessons from 1996 Telecommunications Act - Consumers Union
    Competition in local telephone markets has failed to materialize because the local telephone monopolies have refused to open their networks to new entrants who ...
  36. [36]
    Local Telephone Competition: A Brief Overview - Every CRS Report
    May 27, 2003 · The ILECs, or established carriers, are composed of exchange carriers that are the historical holders of the franchise to provide exchange ...
  37. [37]
    47 CFR § 64.2305 - Definitions. - Legal Information Institute
    ... services (as defined in 47 U.S.C. 226(a)(2)). (g) Telephone exchange service. Telephone exchange service means: (1) Service within a telephone exchange, or ...
  38. [38]
    Basic local exchange service - Public Utilities Commission of Ohio
    BLES is the simplest form of landline phone service available. BLES customers can make local calls, but typically do not have additional add-ons such as caller ...
  39. [39]
    MCL - Section 484.2102 - Michigan Legislature
    (b) "Basic local exchange service" or "local exchange service" means the provision of an access line and usage within a local calling area for the transmission ...
  40. [40]
    Review of the Section 251 Unbundling Obligations of Incumbent ...
    Sep 2, 2003 · Review of the Section 251 Unbundling Obligations of Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers; Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions of the ...
  41. [41]
    47 U.S. Code § 251 - Interconnection - Law.Cornell.Edu
    (b) Obligations of all local exchange carriersEach local exchange carrier has the following duties: (1) Resale. The duty not to prohibit, and not to impose ...
  42. [42]
    What Is a Local Exchange Carrier (LEC) in Telecom?
    Apr 28, 2022 · A local exchange carrier (LEC) is the local landline telephone company that is responsible for a number of telecom services for both individuals and businesses ...
  43. [43]
    What is an incumbent local exchange carrier (ILEC)? - TechTarget
    May 30, 2023 · Local exchanges connect to other local exchanges within a local access and transport area (LATA) or to interexchange carriers (IXCs), such as ...
  44. [44]
    What is a Central Office? - CommScope
    Central offices house essential network equipment, including optical distribution frames (ODF), fiber panels, and switching systems. These components facilitate ...
  45. [45]
    [PDF] Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-152 Before the ...
    Oct 28, 2020 · We eliminate unbundling requirements, subject to a reasonable transition period, for enterprise-grade DS1 and DS3 loops where there is evidence ...
  46. [46]
    [PDF] FCC PROPOSES ELIMINATING OUTDATED PHONE NETWORK ...
    Nov 22, 2019 · Legacy Narrowband Voice-Grade Loops—These network elements are used to provide voice service and have no broadband service capability.
  47. [47]
    Section 251 Network Unbundling
    Section 251 directs the FCC to determine which network elements incumbent LECs must provide to competitors on an unbundled basis at cost-based rates.
  48. [48]
    Local Exchange Carrier - Sinch
    A Local Exchange Carrier (LEC) is a telecommunications provider serving a specific local area, referred to as a local access and transport area (LATA).
  49. [49]
    [PDF] Communications Act of 1934
    (2) SUSPENSIONS AND MODIFICATIONS FOR RURAL CARRIERS.--A local exchange carrier with fewer than 2 percent of the Nation's subscriber lines installed in the ...
  50. [50]
    Common Carrier Filing Requirements - Information for Firms ...
    May 18, 2021 · An incumbent or competitive local exchange carrier (LEC) who provides local exchange telephone service to one or more end user customers. An ...
  51. [51]
    Collocation Requirements - Federal Communications Commission
    Section 251(c)(6) of the Act obligates incumbent local exchange carriers (LECs) to provide, "on rates, terms, and conditions that are just, reasonable, and ...
  52. [52]
    [PDF] Federal Communications Commission FCC 01-98
    incumbent LECs' provision of local exchange service and CPE. a ... definition of “small business concern” in 5 U.S.C. § 632). 178. 15 U.S.C. § 632. Page ...
  53. [53]
    Jurisdictional Separations | Federal Communications Commission
    The primary purpose of separations is to determine whether a local exchange carrier (LEC)'s cost of providing regulated services are to be recovered through ...
  54. [54]
    [PDF] Federal Communications Commission FCC 22-54
    Jul 15, 2022 · (1) Local exchange carriers shall may not assess a terminating interstate or intrastate switched access tandem switching or terminating switched ...
  55. [55]
    [PDF] Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-94
    Nov 14, 2023 · Today, local exchange carriers that generally provide exchange access service are divided between “incumbents,” carriers that were providing ...
  56. [56]
    [PDF] Examining the Role of State Regulators as Telecommunications ...
    State commissions retain oversight of intrastate access and wholesale services, including rules for ordering and provisioning the unbundled elements used to ...
  57. [57]
    47 CFR Part 51 -- Interconnection - eCFR
    The purpose of these rules is to implement sections 251 and 252 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 USC 251 and 252.
  58. [58]
    [PDF] State Retail Rate Regulation of Local Exchange Carriers as of ...
    This report includes six tables that provide different levels of detail about the regulatory regimes of local exchange carriers in the United States, both ...
  59. [59]
    94-C-0095: Other Local Exchange Carrier Requirements
    All local service providers will be required to define their service territories, provide access to emergency services, and comply with our consumer protection ...
  60. [60]
    ILEC - Incumbent Local Exchange Carrier
    Who Should File: Any entity that held a CCN as of September 01, 1975 and is providing local exchange telephone service, basic local telecommunications service, ...
  61. [61]
    Telecommunications | MPUC - Maine.gov
    MPUC regulates Provider of Last Resort (POLR) service, wholesale services, and certifies CLECs. It does not regulate broadband or non-POLR retail services. ...Missing: oversight | Show results with:oversight
  62. [62]
    47 U.S. Code § 254 - Universal service - Law.Cornell.Edu
    Universal service is an evolving level of telecommunications services that the Commission shall establish periodically under this section.
  63. [63]
    Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service
    On February 8, 1996, President Clinton signed into law the Telecommunication Act of 1996. This Act expanded the scope of the existing Universal Service ...
  64. [64]
    Universal Service | Federal Communications Commission
    Funding for universal service came from a series of access charges that long distance carriers paid as intercarrier compensation (ICC) to local exchange ...
  65. [65]
    Who Must Contribute - Universal Service Administrative Company
    FCC Form 499-Q Exempt​​ A company that demonstrates a de minimis status is exempt from directly contributing to the universal service fund for a given year, and ...
  66. [66]
    Universal Service Program for High-Cost Areas
    FCC Waives USF, Broadband Program Rules in Response to Helene Order: WCB waives Lifeline, E-Rate, Emergency Connectivity Fund (ECF), Rural Health Care (RHC), ...
  67. [67]
    [PDF] Carriers of Last Resort: Updating a Traditional Doctrine
    The Telecommunications Act of 1996 authorized the. FCC to pay universal service support to multiple carriers, including non-COLRs. At the same time the Act ...
  68. [68]
    [PDF] Carrier of Last Resort (COLR): Obligations for California's ...
    Mar 19, 2025 · Within the realm of telephone service, a carrier of last resort (COLR) is a designated service provider that has a legal obligation to provide ...
  69. [69]
    [PDF] Carrier of Last Resort: Anachronism or Necessity? - Oregon.gov
    "Provider of last resort" means an ILEC or successor telephone company that is required to provide basic local exchange service on a reasonable and non- ...
  70. [70]
    [PDF] The Eligible Telecommunications Carrier - Resource Library | NARUC
    The Act defines an ETC as a local exchange carrier that has been designated by a state commission to provide basic services, at affordable rates, to all ...
  71. [71]
    [PDF] TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1996 - Congress.gov
    Mar 5, 1996 · ... Section 214 (47 U.S.C. 214) is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new subsection: ''(e) PROVISION OF UNIVERSAL SERVICE.—.
  72. [72]
    The Telecom Act's Phone-y Deregulation - Brookings Institution
    In the 1996 Telecommunications Act, Congress for the first time required states to allow competition in local telephone service. Before 1996 all but a few ...
  73. [73]
    [PDF] Telecommunications Liberalization: The U.S. Model
    In 1995, the local exchange companies that submitted their financial results to the FCC reported a total of $51.2 bil- lion in noncapital costs for 148.4 ...
  74. [74]
    What Happens When Local Phone Service Is Deregulated?
    As shown in Figure 1, in real terms, the price of long distance service fell by more than 70 percent between 1984 and 2006. The 1996 Telecom Act | The success ...
  75. [75]
    The Telecommunications Act of 1996 and its impact - ScienceDirect
    Most importantly, the Act requires that incumbent local exchange carriers (`ILECs') (i) lease parts of their network (unbundled network elements) to ...
  76. [76]
    [PDF] FCC Releases Study on Telephone Trends
    Dec 21, 2000 · As of June 2000, Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (CLECs) provided 12.7 million (or. 6.7%) of the approximately 192 million nationwide ...
  77. [77]
    [PDF] An Accurate Scorecard of the Telecommunications Act of 1996
    Jan 5, 2003 · New empirical research by the Phoenix Center purports to show that the Telecommunications. Act was responsible for creating 92,000 new jobs ...
  78. [78]
    CLEC Vs. ILEC Share | Download Scientific Diagram - ResearchGate
    CLECs could increase their share of revenue to only 15% of the total revenue. This is really a small portion as compared to the revenue of ILECs. Figure 4 [16] ...
  79. [79]
    [PDF] The Telecommunications Act of 1996 and Its Impact
    This paper analyzes the effects on the implementation of the Telecommunications Act of. 1996 (“Act”) on US telecommunications markets and is based on my ...
  80. [80]
    Telecommunication in the US: From Regulation to Competition ...
    Nov 25, 2012 · Regulation and legislation were slow to recognize these changes, and large welfare losses occurred, some of which could have been avoided if ...
  81. [81]
    47 CFR Part 69 -- Access Charges - eCFR
    This part establishes rules for access charges for interstate or foreign access services provided by telephone companies on or after January 1, 1984.
  82. [82]
    FCC 97-158 First Report & Order on Access Charge Reform
    Under cost-of-service regulation, incumbent LECs calculate the specific access charge rates using projected costs and projected demand for access services.
  83. [83]
    Connect America Fund; Developing a Unified Intercarrier ...
    Jan 30, 2020 · In adopting the VoIP Symmetry Rule, the Commission reaffirmed its practice of determining whether a carrier can impose access charges by ...
  84. [84]
    Access Arbitrage - Federal Communications Commission
    May 3, 2024 · Under the rules adopted in 2011, a LEC that is engaged in access stimulation is required to reduce its access charges either by adjusting its ...
  85. [85]
    Updating the Intercarrier Compensation Regime To Eliminate ...
    Jun 1, 2023 · Some LECs took advantage of technological advances to undermine the Commission's access charge regime by engaging in “access arbitrage.” These ...
  86. [86]
    [PDF] Telecommunications Regulation: Current Approaches with the End ...
    Cost-based regulation of telecommunications (for example rate-of-return regulation in the United States) had significant negative effects on innovation while it.Missing: impact | Show results with:impact
  87. [87]
    [PDF] Innovation, Investment, and Unbundling
    ILEC will expect rationally that regulation will greatly diminish the reward for successful innovation. ... cost because of rate regulation and social ...
  88. [88]
    [PDF] REPORT OF THE REMOVAL OF STATE AND LOCAL ...
    Jan 23, 2018 · As cited by many in comments to the FCC, broadband providers perceive these barriers as the cause of delayed broadband deployment and explained ...
  89. [89]
    How the Universal Service Fund Can Better Serve Consumers While ...
    Sep 15, 2025 · Private and federal investment have closed the broadband deployment gap. As such, the government should stop spending on obsolete, duplicative ...
  90. [90]
    The Universal Service Fund Is Broken, Don't Expand It - Publications
    Oct 21, 2024 · While originally enacted to provide “universal” access to telephone communications, its mandate later expanded to include broadband access.
  91. [91]
    [PDF] July 3, 2025 FCC FACT SHEET* Reducing Barriers to Network ...
    Jul 3, 2025 · The Notice would propose to reduce regulatory barriers that prevent much-needed investment in and deployment of next-generation broadband ...
  92. [92]
    Regulatory policies toward local exchange companies under ...
    Such regulatory barriers to entry enable regulators to establish price structures that contain cross-subsidies without fear of attracting entry into those ...
  93. [93]
    [PDF] Universal Service Subsidies Have Failed
    Carriers operating under rate-of-return regulation (typically the smallest rural carriers) may still receive USF funds based on carriers' actual costs, long ...
  94. [94]
    [PDF] The Universal Service Fund: What Do High-Cost Subsidies Subsidize?
    Feb 9, 2011 · The analysis finds that each dollar in high-cost subsidies given to an incumbent local exchange carrier (ILEC) is associated with an increase in ...
  95. [95]
    Lowering the Cost of the Universal Service Fund - AAF
    Dec 5, 2024 · The Universal Service Fund costs over $8 billion a year. Most of these costs come from deployment subsidies in the “High Cost” program and the schools and ...
  96. [96]
    Universal Service Subsidies Have Failed
    Jun 25, 2025 · USF subsidies also distort carriers' incentives, affecting firms' decisions to enter markets, invest in infrastructure and innovation, manage ...
  97. [97]
    Telecommunications: Administration of Universal Service Programs ...
    Jul 23, 2024 · The programs aim to expand availability of broadband and other telecommunications services to low-income consumers, high-cost areas, schools, ...Missing: criticisms | Show results with:criticisms
  98. [98]
    Addressing Business Data Services Pricing Regulations
    The Commission proposes to end rate regulation & tariffing obligations for legacy circuit-based business data services provided by incumbent local exchange ...Missing: BDS | Show results with:BDS
  99. [99]
    Price Cap Business Data Services; Regulation of ... - Federal Register
    Sep 4, 2025 · Because local telephone companies (incumbent local exchange carriers) held local monopolies on circuit-switched telephone service, historically ...
  100. [100]
    [PDF] July 17, 2025 FCC FACT Sheet* Price Cap Business Data Services
    Jul 17, 2025 · Competitive local exchange carriers were required to detariff their BDS by 2020. See 47 CFR § 61.203. 6 47 CFR §§ 61.50(j), 69.803(c); ...
  101. [101]
    FCC Proposes Further Deregulation of Business Data Services - CCMI
    The FCC is poised to use its August 7, 2025, meeting to eliminate remaining rate regulation and tariffing requirements on BDS.Missing: 2023-2025 | Show results with:2023-2025
  102. [102]
    Twenty-one States Push to Scrap Carrier-of-Last-Resort Laws
    Apr 11, 2025 · Under "carrier of last resort" mandates, incumbent providers are still legally obligated in many states to maintain and repair legacy copper ...Missing: definition history
  103. [103]
    AT&T seeks new legislation that would affect how 'carrier of last ...
    Jun 24, 2024 · AT&T has unsuccessfully petitioned the California Public Utilities Commission to withdraw as a carrier of last resort for landline phone customers.<|control11|><|separator|>
  104. [104]
    Is 'carrier of last resort' on its way out? - Capitol Weekly
    Aug 12, 2025 · The policy, known as the carrier of last resort (COLR), was implemented to ensure that all Californians have access to reliable telephone ...Missing: definition history
  105. [105]
    [PDF] Carrier of Last Resort: Anachronism or Necessity?
    This paper reviews COLR requirements in the states, describes the rules that carriers may use to opt out of their COLR duties as a result of increased ...
  106. [106]
    [PDF] May 4, 2018 Via Electronic Filing (forbearance@fcc ... - USTelecom
    May 4, 2018 · In recent years, the Commission has taken bipartisan action to forbear from applying certain outdated regulations. The time has come to act ...
  107. [107]
    Elimination of Carrier of Last Resort Obligations Will Result in ...
    Jun 27, 2024 · Carrier of Last Resort (COLR) requires providers to serve all customers, including low-income. A bill may allow carriers to withdraw, ...
  108. [108]
    Reducing Barriers to Network Improvements and Service Changes
    Aug 28, 2025 · In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that seeks comment on deregulatory ...Missing: deregulation | Show results with:deregulation