State universal service funds vary in considerable ways, concluded the...

states as well as the District of Columbia to help in “understanding the design of the state funds and the level of funding,” which NRRI calls in its report “particularly critical” (http://xrl.us/bnhtrk). Underscored results from the NRRI report include the statistics that 43 states and the district possess “a combination of various universal service funds, including high-cost, Lifeline, schools and libraries, and other types of funds”; 21 states devote funds specifically for high-cost support; 31 states have funds for relay service; four devote funds specifically to broadband; and six states (Alabama, Delaware, Massachusetts, Montana, New Jersey and Tennessee) “do not have any form of funds to support telecommunications service.” The report also breaks down other elements, such as when VoIP providers contribute to state USF funds -- three states accept voluntary VoIP contributions, 10 states require contributions from all VoIP providers and 11 require contributions from only interconnected VoIP providers. NRRI recommends tailoring each state’s approach to its nature. “Each state fund must be designed individually to meet the specific needs of both the state’s constituents and its carriers,” NRRI wrote in its conclusion. “States with largely rural populations may generally design their funds to include high-cost support for carriers providing service in difficult to reach or widely dispersed areas. States with more urban populations may not need high-cost funds, and may concentrate their efforts on supporting specific goals such as broadband deployment or Lifeline services."