Sehba Mohiuddin IL 604401 DEC - 62005 Willard Hart I FCC- MAll 2630 Onalaska Ave. , La Crosse, WI 54603 I November 2,2005 12:23 AM Representative Ron Kind US House of Representatives

Sehba Mohiuddin 3A Fernwood Drwe , Bollngbrook, IL 60440

December I , 2005 12:35 PM

Representative Judy Biggert U.S. House of Representatives I3 I7 Longworth House Office Building Washington, DC 20515-0001

Subject: Re: Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service CC Docket 96-45

Dear Representalive Biggert:

1 have serious concerns regarding the Federal Communications Commissions' (FCC) position to change the Universal Service Fund (USF) collection method to a monthly flat fee. Many of your constimen&, including me, my friends, family and neighbors, will be negatively impacted by the unfair change proposed by the FCC.

As you know, USF is currently collected on a revenue basis. People who use more pay more into the system. If the FCC changes that system to a flat fee, that means that someone who uses one thousand minutes a month of long distance. pays the same amount into the fund as someone who uses zero minutes of long distance a month. Constituents who use their limited resources wisely should not be penalized for doing so.

A flat fee tax could cause many low-volume long distance users, like students, prepaid wireless users, senior citizens and lowincome residential and rural consumers, to give up their phones due to unaffordable monthly increases on their bills. Shifting the funding burden of the USF from high volume to low-volume users is radical and unnecessary. In addition, it would have a highly detrimental effect on small businesses all across America. 'The Keep USF Fair Coalition, of which I am a member, keeps me informed about the USF issue with monthly newsletters and up to date information on their wehsite, including links to FCC information. While I am aware that I'ederal law docs not require companies to recover, or "pass along" these fees to their customers, the reality is that they do. As a consumer I would like ensure 1 am charged fairly. If the FCC goes to a numbers taxed, my service will cost morc. And according to the Coalition's recent meetings with top FCC officials, the FCC has plans to change to a flat fee system soon and without legislation.

1 will continue to monitor developments on the issue and continue to spread the word to my community. 1 request you pass along my concerns to the FCC on my behalf, letting them know how a flat fee tax could disproportionately affcct those in your constituency.

Thank you for your continued work and I look forward to hearing about your position on this matter

Sincerely.

Sehba Mohiuddin

cc FCC General Email Box

Senator Barbara Boxer U.S. Senate 1 I2 Han Senate Office Building Washington. DC 20510-0001


Dear Senator Boxer:

1 have serious concerns regarding the Federal Communications Commissions' (FCC) position to change the Universal Service Fund (USF) collection method to a monthly flat fee. Many of your constituents, including me, my friends, family and neighbors, will he negatively impacted by the unfair change proposed by the FCC.

As you know, USF is currently collected on a revenue basis. People who use more pay more into the system. If the FCC changes that system to a flat fee, that means that someone who uses one thousand minutes a month of long distance, pays the same amount into the fund as someone who uses zero minutes of long distance a month. Constituents who use their limited resources wisely should not be penalized for doing so.

A flat fee tax could cause many low-volume long distance users, like students, prepaid wireless users, senior citizens and low-income residential and rural consumers, to give up their phones due to unaffordable monthly increases on their hills. Shifting the funding burden of the USF from high volume to low-volume users is radical and unnecessary. In addition, it would have a highly detrimental effect on small businesses all across America. The Keep USF Fair Coalition, of which I am a member, keeps me informed about the USF issue with monthly newsletters and up to date information on their wehsite, including links to FCC information. While I am aware that federal law does not require companies to recover, or "pass along" these fees to their customers, the reality is that they do. As a consumer I would like ensure I am charged fairly. If the FCC goes to a numbers taxed, my service will cost more. And according to the Coalition's recent meetings with top FCC officials, the FCC has plans to change to a flat fee system soon and without legislation.

I will continue to monitor developments on the issue and continue to spread the word to my community. I request you pass along my concerns to the FCC on my behalf, letting them know how a flat fee tax could disproportionately affect those in your constituency.

lhank you for your continued work and I look forward to hearing ahout your position on this matter,

Sincerely,

Sharon LeMay

cc: FCC General Email Box

1 DEC - 62005

Willard Hart I FCC- MAll 2630 Onalaska Ave. , La Crosse, WI 54603 I .

November 2,2005 12:23 AM

Representative Ron Kind U S House of Representatives 1406 Longworth House Office Building Washington, DC 20515-0001


Dear Representative Kind:

1 have serious concerns regarding the Federal Communications Commissions' (FCC) position to change the Universal Service Fund (USF) collection method to a monthly flat fee. Many of your constituents, including me: my friends, family and neighbors, will be negatively impacted by the unfair change proposed by the FCC.

As you know, USF is currently collected on a revenue basis. People who use more pay more into the system. If the FCC changes that system to a flat fee, that means that someone who uses one thousand minutes a month of long distance, pays the same amount into the fund as someone who uses zero minutes of long distance a month. Constituents who use their limited resources wisely should not he penalized for doing so.

A flat fee tax could cause many low-volume long distance users, like students, prepaid wireless users, senior citizens and low-income residential and rural consumers, to give up their phones due to unaffordable monthly increases on their bills. Shifting the funding burden of the USF from high volume to low-volume users is radical and unnecessary. In addition, it would have a highly detrimental effect on small businesses all across America. The Keep USF Fair Coalition, of which I am a member, keeps me informed about the USF issue with monthly newsletters and up to date information on their wehsite, including links to FCC information. While I am aware that federal law does not require companies to recover, or "pass along" these fees to their customers, the reality is that they do. As a consumer I would like ensure I am charged fairly. If the FCC goes to a numbers taxed, my service will cost more. And according to the Coahion's recent meetings with top FCC ofificials, the FCC has plans to change to a flat fee system soon and without legislation.


Thank you for your continued work and I look forward to hearing about your position on this matter,

Sincerely,

Bill Hart

cc. FCC Chair Kevin Martin, Congress

Representative Jay Inslee U S . House of Representatives 403 Cannon House Office Building Washington, DC 20515-0001


Dear Representative Inslee:

I have serious concerns regarding the Federal Communications Commissions' (FCC) position to change the Universal Service Fund (USF) collection method to a monthly flat fee.

As you know, USF is currently collected on a revenue basis. People who use more pay more into the system. If the FCC changes that system to a flat fee, that means that someone who uses one thousand minutes a month of long distance, pays the same amount into the f'und as someone who uses ZERO minutes of long distance a month. Constituents who use their limited resources wisely should not be penalized for doing so.

Shifting the funding burden of the USF from high volume to low-volume users is radical and unnecessary. In addition, it would have a highly detrimental effect on small businesses all across America.

While I am aware that federal law does not require companies to recover, or "pass along" these fees to their customers, the reality is that they do. As a consumer I would like to he charged fairly. If the FCC goes to a numbers tax, my service will cost more. And according to the Coalition's recent meetings with top FCC officials, the FCC has plans to change to a flat fee system soon and without legislation.

Thank you for your continued work and I look forward to hearing ahout your position on this matter.

Sincerely,

Rose Lagerberg

cc: FCC Chair Kevin Martin, Congress

Georgina Norris

929 Shawnee Ct , A h , OK 73521 ~~

December 1,2005 12:24 PM

Represcntative Frank Lucas U.S. House of Representatives 2342 Raybum House Office Building Washington, DC 20515-0001


Dsdr Representative Lucas:

I have serious concerns regarding the Federal Communications Commissions' (FCC) position to change the Universal Service Fund (USF) collection method to a monthly flat fee. Many of your constituents, including me, my friends, family and neighbors, will he negatively impacted by the unfair change proposed by the FCC.

As you know, USF is currently collected on a revenue basis. People who use more pay more into the system. If the FCC changes that system to a flat fee, that means that someone who uses one thousand minutes a month of long distance. pays the same amount into the fund as someone who uses zero minutes of long distance a month. Constituents who use their limited resources wisely should not be penalized for doing so.

A flat fee tax could cause many low-volume long distance users, like students, prepaid wireless users, senior citizens and low-income residential and rural consumers, to give up their phones due to unaffordable monthly increases on their bills. Shifting the funding burden of the USF &om high volume to low-volume users is radical and unnecessary In addition, it would have a highly detrimental effect on small businesses all across America. The Keep USF Fair Coalition, of which I am a member, keeps me informed about the USF issue with monthly newsletters and up to date information on their website, including links to FCC information. While I am aware that federal law does not require companies to recover, or "pass along" these fees to their customers, the reality is that they do. As a consumer I would like ensure I am charged fairly. If the FCC goes to a numbers taxed, my service will cost more. And according to the Coalition's recent meetings with top FCC officials, the FCC has plans to change to a flat fee system soon and without legislation.


Thank you for your continued work and I look forward to hearing ahout your position on this matter.

Sincerely.

Georgina Norris

cc: FCC Gcneral Email Box

Denise Millet 21 Franklin Street, Ansoma, CT 06401-0640

Senator Chris Dodd U.S. Senate 448 Russell Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510-0001


. RECEIVED & WPEUk;

*EC - 6 2005

Dear Senator Dodd

I have serious concerns regarding the Federal Communications Commissions' (FCC) position to change the Universal Service Fund (USF) collection method to a monthly flat fee. Many of your constituents, including me, my friends, family and neighbors, will be negatively impacted by the unfair change proposed by the FCC.


I believe that if the cost of living continues to rise and the pay raises stay the same, the American public will no longer be living happy normal lives. "The American Dream" as we knew it, will be no more. ..

A flat fee tax could cause many low-volume long distance users, like students, prepaid wireless users, senior citizens and low-income residential and rural consumers, to give up their phones due to unaffordable monthly increases on their bills. Shifting the funding burden of the USF from high volume to low-volume users is radical and unnecessary. In addition, it would have a highly detrimental effect on small businesses all across America. The Keep USF Fair Coalition, of which I am a member, keeps me informed about the USF issue with monthly newsletters and up to date information on their website, including links to FCC information. While I am aware that federal law does not require companies to recover, or "pass along" these fees to their customers, the reality is that they do. As a consumer I would like ensure I am charged fairly. If the FCC goes to a numbers taxed, my service will cost more. And according to the Coalition's recent meetings with top FCC officials, the FCC has plans to change to a flat fee system soon and without legislation.

I will continue to monitor developments on the issue and continue to spread the word to my community. I request you pass along my concerns to the FCC on my behalf, letting them know how a flat fee tax could disproportionately affect those in y o u constituency.

Thank you for your continued work and I look forward to hearing about your position on this matter.

Sincerely,

Denise Millet


James Dunn 3555 NW Elmwood Dr. , Corvallis, OR 97330-1006

November 1.2005 8 5 1 PM

Senator Gordon Smith US . Senate 404 Russell Senate Office Building Washington, DC 205 IO-0001

Subject. Re: Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service CC Docket 96-45 1 FCC-MAILROOM I Dear Senator Smith

The considered action of the Federal Communications Commission(FCC)to change the Universal Service Fund (USF) collection method to a monthly flat fee is of great concem to me. Many of your constituents, including me, my friends, family and neighbors, will be negatively impacted by the unfair change proposed by the FCC.

You well know that USF is currently collected on a revenue basis. People who use more pay more into the system. If the FCC changes that system to a flat fee, that means that someone who uses one thousand minutes a month of long distance, pays the same amount into the fund as someone who uses zero minutes of long distance a month. Constituents who use their limited resources wisely should not be penalized for doing so.

A flat fee tax could cause many low-volume long distance users, like students, prepaid wireless users, senior citizens and low-income residential and rural consumers, to give up their phones due to unaffordable monthly increases on their bills. Shifting the funding burden of the USF from high volume to low-volume users is radical and unnecessary. In addition, it would have a highly detrimental effect on small businesses all across America.

The Keep USF Fair Coalition, of which I am a member, keeps me informed about the USF issue with monthly newsletters and up to date information on their wehsite, including links to FCC information. While I am aware that federal law does not require companies to recover, or "pass along" these fees to their customers, the reality is that they do. As a consumer I would like ensure I am charged fairly. If the FCC goes to a numbers taxed, my service will cost more. And according to the Coalition's recent meetings with top FCC officials, the FCC has plans to change to a flat fee system soon and without legislation.

I will continue to monitor developments on the issue and continue to spread the word to my community. I request yon pass along my concerns to the FCC on my behalf, letting them know how a flat fee tax could disproportionately arfcct rhose in y o u ionstitxzcj..

Your sincere consideration of this matter is greatly appreciated. I Thank you for your continued work, and I look forward to bearing about your position on this matter.

Sincerely.

James Dunn


Senator Chuck Hagel U.S. Senate 248 Russell Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510-0001


Ccar Senator Hagel:



A flat fee tax could cause many low-volume long distance users, like students, prepaid wireless users, senior citizens and low-income residential and rural consumers, to give up their phones due to unaffordable monthly increases on their bills. Shifting the funding burden of the USF from high volume to low-volume users is radical and unnecessary. In addition, it would have a highly detrimental effect on small businesses all across America. The Keep USF Fair Coalition, of which I am a member, keeps me informed ahout the USF issue with monthly newsletters and up to date information on their website, including links to FCC information. While I am aware that federal law does not require companies to recover, or "pass along" these fees to their customers, the reality is that they do. As a consumer I would like to ensure I am charged fairly. If the FCC goes to a numbers taxed, my service will cost more. And according to the Coalition's recent meetings with top FCC officials, the FCC has plans to change to a flat fee system soon and without legislation.



Sincerely,

John Weed

MIchael Ray 4001 Sunny Fox Road, Mountam Vlew, AR 72560

November 1,2005 8:49 PM

Senator Mark Pryor U S . Senate 257 Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington, DC 205 10-0001


Dear Senator Pryor:

I have serious concerns regarding the Federal Communications Commissions' (FCC) position to change the Universal Service Fund (USF) collection method to a monthly flat fee. Many of your constituents, including me. my friends, family and neighbors, will he negatively impacted by the unfair change proposed by the FCC.


A flat fee tax could cause many low-volume long distance users, like students, prepaid wireless users, senior citizens and low-income residential and rural consumers, to give up their phones due to unaffordable monthly increases on their hills. Shifting the funding burden of the USF from high volume to low-volume users is radical and unnecessary. In addition, it would have a highly detrimental effect on small businesses all across America. The Keep USF Fair Coalition, of which I am a member, keeps me informed ahout the USF issue with monthly newsletters and up to date information on their website, including links to FCC information. While I am aware that federal law does not require companies to recover, or "pass along" these fees to their customers, the reality is that they do, As a consumer I would like ensure I am charged fairly. If the FCC goes to a numbers taxed, my service will cost more. And according to the Coalition's recent meetings with top FCC officials, the FCC has plans to change to a flat fee system soon and without legislation.

I will continue to monitor developments on the issue and continue to spread the word to my community. I request yoii pass along my concerns to the FCC on my behalf, letting them know how a flat fee tax could disproportionately affect those in your constituency.

Thank you for your continued work and 1 look forward to hearing about your position on this matter,

Sincerely.

Mlchael Ray

cc: The Federal Communications Commission

John Graybill I 209 Fairview, LaGrange, IN 46761

November 1,2005 9:42 PM

Representative Mark Souder U.S. House of Representatives 223 1 Rayhum House Office Building Washington, DC 205 15-0001


Dear Representative Souder:

I vigorously oppose the attempt to move to a flat fee for the USF

I have been following this matter regularly. I have serious concerns regarding the Federal Communications Commissions' (FCC) position to change the Universal Service Fund (USF) collection method to a monthly flat fee. Many of your constituents, including me, my friends, family and neighbors, will be negatively impacted by the unfair change proposed by the FCC. This is not fair to consumers who use long distance less than big volume users.

As you know, USF is currently collected on a revenue basis. People who use more pay more into the system. If the FCC changes that system to a flat fee, that means that someone who uses one thousand minutes a month of long distance, pays the same amount into the fund as someone who uses zero minutes of long distance a month. Constituents who use their limited resources wisely should not be penalized for doing so. That would not be fair, nor is it logiocal.

A flat fee tax could cause many low-volume long distance users, like students, prepaid wireless users, senior citizens and low-income residential and m a l consumers, to give up their phones due to unaffordable monthly increases on their hills. Shifting the funding burden of the USF from high volume to low-volume users is radical and unnecessary. In addition, it would have a highly detrimental effect on small businesses all across America. The Keep USF Fair Coalition, of which I am a member, keeps me informed about the USF issue with monthly newsletters and up to date information on their website, including links to FCC information. While I am aware that federal law does not require companies to recover, or "pass along" these fees to their customers, the reality is that they do, As a consumer I would like ensure I am charged fairly. If the FCC goes to a numbers taxed, my service will cost more. And according to the Coalition's recent meetings with top FCC officials, the FCC has plans to change to a flat fee system soon and without legislation.

I will continue to monitor developments on the issue and continue to spread the word to my community. I request you pass along my concerns to the FCC on my behalf, letting them h o w how a flat fee tax could dispropoaionately affect those in your constituency.


Sincerely,

John Graybill


. ~ . ....

._.L_

Russell Purkey

13 Hickory Court, Farmmgton, NH 03835

Dear Representative Bradley:

1 have serious concerns regarding the Federal Communications Commissions' (FCC) position to change the Universal Service Fund (USF) collection method to a monthly flat fee. Many of your constituents, including me, my friends, and my family, will he negatively impacted by the unfair change proposed by the FCC.

As you know, USF is currently collected on a revenue basis. People who use more pay more into the system. This is entirely fair and expectable. If the FCC changes that system to a flat fee, that means that someone who uses one thousand minutes a month of long distance, pays the same amount into the fund as someone who uses zero minutes of long distance a month, Like ME. Constituents who use their limited resources wisely should not be penalized for doing so.

A flat fee tax could cause many low-volume long distance users, like students, prepaid wireless users, senior citizens and low-income residential and rural consumers, to give up their phones due to unaffordahle monthly increases on their hills. Shifting the funding burden of the USF from high volume to low-volume users is radical, unnecessary and totally unfair to the low volume users. In addition, it would have a highly detrimental effect on small businesses all across America. 1 stay informed ahout the USF issue and I do not intend to be silent on this issue. And I have a hahit of voting my dislikes. While federal law does not require companies to recover, or "pass along" the USF fees to customers, the reality is that they do. As a consumer I would like ensure I am charged fairly. If the FCC goes to a numbers tax, my service will cost more, with no increase in value to me. And according to recent statements by the FCC chairman, the FCC has plans to change to a flat fee system soon and without legislation. How can you allow this? It's unamerican. I request you pass along my concerns to the FCC on my behalf, letting them know how a flat fee tax would disproportionately affect those in your constituency.

T h a k you for your continued work and I look forward to hearing about your position on this matter.

Sincerely,

Russell Purkey


RECEIVED & MPECTiu

DEC - 6 2005

FCC - MAILROOM

Linda Thorman 1602 Lyndhurst Drive Apt. #C, Savoy, IL 61874-8702

Senator Dick Durbin U.S. Senate 332 Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington, DC 205 10-0001


OFT - _ 0-

Dear Senator Durbin:


As you know, USF is currently collected on a revenue basis. People who use more pay more into the system. Ifthe FCC changes that system to a flat fee, that means that someone who uses one thousand minutes a month of long distance, pays the same amount into the fund as someone who uses zero minutes of long distance a month. Constituents who use their limited resonrces wisely should not be penalized for doing so.

A flat fee tax could cause many low-volume long distance users, like students, prepaid wireless users, senior citizens and low-income residential and rural consumers, to give up their phones due to unaffordable monthly increases on their bills. Shifhng the funding burden of the USF from high volume to low-volume users is radical and unnecessary. In addition, it would have a highly detrimental effect on small businesses all across America. The Keep USF Fair Coalition, of which I am a member, keeps me informed about the USF issue with monthly newsletters and up to date information on their wehsite, including links to FCC information. While I am aware that federal law does not require companies to recover, or "pass along" these fees to their customers, the reality is that they do. As a consumer I would like ensure I am charged fairly. If the FCC goes to a numbers taxed, my service will cost more. And according to the Coalition's recent meetings with top FCC officials, the FCC has plans to change to a flat fee system soon and without legislation.

1 will continue to monitor developments on the issue and continue to spread the word to my community. I request you pass along my concerns to the FCC on my behalf, letting them know how a flat fee tax could disproportionately affect those in your constituency.

Thank you for your continucd work and I iook forward to hearing &hout your position on this matter

Sincerely,

Linda Thorman


Paula Riordan

December I , 2005 12: 17 PM

mmIJ & NSPECTEL

DEC - 6 2005 6-n

Senator Barack Obama U.S. Senate 713 Hart Senate Office Building Washington. DC 20510-0001

Subiect: Re: Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service CC Docket 96-45

Dear Senator Obama:

I have serious concerns regarding the Federal Communications Commissions' (FCC) position to change the Universal Service Fund (USF) collection method to a monthly flat fee. Many of your constituents, including me, my friends. family and neighbors, will be negatively impacted by the unfair change proposed by the FCC.


A flat fee tax could cause many low-volume long distance users, like students, prepaid wireless users, senior citizens and low-income residential and rural consumers, to give up their phones due to unaffordable monthly increases on their bills. Shifting the funding burden of the USF from high volume to low-volume users is radical and unnecessary. In addition. it would have a highly detrimental effect on small businesses all across America. The Keep USF Fair Coalition, of which I am a member, keeps me informed about the USF issue with monthly newsletters and up to date information on their website, including links to FCC information. While I am aware that federal law does not require companies to recover, or "pass along" these fees to their customers, the reality is that they do. As a consumer 1 would like ensure 1 am charged fairly. If the FCC goes to a numbers taxed, my service will cost more. And according to the Coalition's recent meetings with top FCC officials, the FCC has plans to change to a flat fee system soon and without legislation.

1 will continue to monitor developments on the issue and continue to spread the word to my community. I request you pass along my concerns to the FCC on my behalf, letting them know how a flat fee tax could disproportionately affect those in your constituency.


Sincerely.

Paula Riordan


December I , 2005 12:22 PM

Senator Dick Durbin U.S. Senate 332 Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510-0001


Dear Senator Durbin:

1 havc serious concerns regarding the Federal Communications Commissions' (FCC) position to change the Universal Service Fund (USF) collection method to a monthly flat fee. Many of your constituents, including me, my friends, family and neighbors, will be negatively impacted by the unfair change proposed by the FCC.


A flat fee tax could cause many low-volume long distance users, like students, prepaid wireless users, senior citizens and low-income residential and rural consumers, to give up their phones due to unaffordable monthly increases on their bills. Shifting the funding burden of the USF from high volume to low-volume users is radical and unnecessary. In addition, it would have a highly detrimental effect on small businesses all across America. The Keep USF Fair Coalition, of which I am a member, keeps me informed about the USF issue with monthly newsletters and up to date information on their website, including links to FCC information. While I am aware that federal law does not require companies to recover, or "pass along" these fees to their customers, the reality is that they do. As a consumer I would like ensure I am charged fairly. If the FCC goes to a numbers taxed, my service will cost more. And according to the Coalition's recent meetings with top FCC officials, the FCC bas plans to change to a flat fee system soon and without legislation.


'Thank you for your continued work and I look forward to hearing about your position on this matter.

Sincerely.

laura robinson


DEC - 6 2005

FCC - MAILROOM

Evelyn League 1901A E. Old Hwy 4 0 , New Cambria, KS 67470

November 2,2005 6:44 AM

Senator Pat Roberts U S . Senate 109 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510-0001


Dear Senator Roberts:

I can't believe the Federal Communications Commissions' (FCC) position to change the Universal Service Fund (USF! collection method to a monthly flat fee. This is not equitable at all. Many of your constituents, including me, my friends, family and neighbors, will he negatively impacted by the unfair change proposed by the FCC. Many of us would be taxed for a service we aren't even using while others who make excessive long distance calls would pay only a minimum fee. As you h o w , USF is currently collected on a revenue basis. People who use more pay more into the system. If the FCC changes that system to a flat fee, that means that someone who uses one thousand minutes a month of long distance, pays the same amount into the fund as someone who uses zero minutes of long distance a month. Constituents who use their limited resources wisely should not be penalized for doing so.

A flat fee tax could cause many low-volume long distance users, like students, prepaid wireless users, senior citizens and low-income residential and rural consumers, to give up their phones due to unaffordable monthly increases on their hills. Shifting the funding burden of the USF from high volume to low-volume users is radical and unnecessary. In addition, it would have a highly detrimental effect on small businesses all across America. The Keep USF Fair Coalition, of which I am a member, keeps me informed about the USF issue with monthly newsletters and up to date information on their website, including links to FCC information. While I am aware that federal law does not require companies to recover, or "pass along" these fees to their customers, the reality is that they do. As a consumer I would like ensure I am charged fairly. If the FCC goes to a numbers taxed, my service will cost more. And according to the Coalition's recent meetings with top FCC officials, the FCC has plans to change to a flat fee system soon and without legislation.

I will continue to monitor developments on the issue and continue to spread the word to my cornul&. I request you pass along my concerns to the FCC on my behalf, letting them know how a flat fee tax could dispropoltionately affect those in your constituency.


Sincerely,

Evelyn League


. .

, . . . ,'

DEC - 6 2005 Kay Harris 1331 CR 500, Stephenville, TX 76401

FCC - MAIL- Novembei2,2005 4:30 AM

Senator Kay Hutchison U.S. Senate 284 Russell Senate Office Building Washington, DC 205 IO-0001


Dear Senator Hutchison:

I have serious concerns regarding the Federal Communications Commissions' (FCC) position to change the 1 Jniversal Service Fund (USF) collection method to a monthly flat fee. Many of your constituents, including me, my friends, family and neighbors, will be negatively impacted by the unfair change proposed by the FCC.


A flat fee tax could cause many low-volume long distance users, like students, prepaid wireless users, senior citizens and low-income residential and rural consumers, to give up their phones due to unaffordahle monthly increases on their bills. Shifting the funding burden of the USF from high volume to low-volume users is radical and unnecessary. In addition, it would have a highly detrimental effect on small businesses all across America. The Keep USF Fair Coalition, of which I am a member, keeps me informed about the USF issue with monthly newsletters and up to date information on their wehsite, including links to FCC information. While I am aware that federal law does not require companies to recover, or "pass along" these fees to their customers, the reality is that they do, As a consumer I would like ensure I am charged fairly. If the FCC goes to a numbers taxed, my service will cost more. And according to the Coalition's recent meetings with top FCC officials, the FCC has plans to change to a flat fee system soon and without legislation.



Sincerely,

Kay Harris , .

ic: FCC Chair Kevin Martin, Congress . , .

WNEi &INSPECTED

Calvin Cobb 306 South Street, Troy, NH 03465-2321

December 1. 2005 3:42 PM

Senator Judd Gregg U.S. Senate 393 Russell Senate Office Building Washington, DC 205 10-0001


Dear Senator Gregg:

1 have serious concerns regarding the Federal Communications Commissions' (FCC) position to change the Universal Service Fund (USF) collection method to a monthly flat fee. Many of your constituents, including me, my fnends, family and neighbors, will be negatively impacted by the unfair change proposed by the FCC.


A flat fee tax could cause many low-volume long distance users, like students, prepaid wireless users, senior citizens and low-income residential and rural consumers, to give up their phones due to unaffordable monthly increases on their bills. Shifting the funding burden of the USF fiom high volume to low-volume users is radical and unnecessary. In addition, it would have a highly detrimental effect on small businesses all across America. The Keep USF Fair Coalition, of which I am a member, keeps me informed about the USF issue with monthly newsletters and up to date information on their website, including links to FCC information. While I am aware that federal law does not require companies to recover, or "pass along" these fees to their customers, the reality is that they do. As a consumer I would like ensure I am charged fairly. If the FCC goes to a numbers taxed, my service will cost more. And according to the Coalition's recent meetings with top FCC officials, the FCC has plans to change to a flat fee system soon and without legislation.



Sincerely,

Calvin Cobb


I DEC 6 2005 John Jindracek 2 I I-elieart Lane , Elmwood Park, NJ 07407-3221 FCC - MAILROOM

I I December 1,2005 12:04 PM

Representative Steve Rothman U.S. House of Representatives 2303 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, DC 205 15-0001


Dear Rcpresentative Rothman:

1 have serious cuncems regarding the Federal Communications Commissions' (FCC) position tu change the Universal Service Fund (USF) collection method to a monthly flat fee. Many of your constituents, including me, my friends, family and neighbors, will be negatively impacted by the unfair change proposed by the FCC.


A flat fee tax could cause many low-volume long distance users, like students, prepaid wireless users, senior citizens and low-income residential and rural consumers, to give up their phones due to unaffordable monthly increases on their bills. Shifting the funding burden of the USF from high volume to low-volume users is radical and unnecessary. In addition, it would have a highly detrimental effect on small businesses all across America. The Keep USF Fair Coalition, of which I am a member, keeps me informed ahout the USF issue with monthly newsletters and up to date information on their website, including links to FCC information. While I am aware that federal law does not require companies to recover, or "pass along" these fees to their customers, the reality is that they do. As a consumer 1 would like ensure I am charged fairly. If the FCC goes to a numbers taxed, my service will cost more. And according to the Coalition's recent meetings with top FCC officials, the FCC has plans to change to a flat fee system soon and without legislation.

I will continue to monitor developments on the issue and continue to spread the word to my community. 1 request you pass along my concerns to the FCC on my behalf, letting them know how a flat fee tax could disproportionately affect those in your constituency.


Sincerely,

John Jindracek


DEC 6 2005 Melissa Scoggins

I FCc - bfAILROoM 6550 Bndgeforth Lane, Amelia Court House, VA 23002

December I , 2005 3:42 PM - Senator George Allen U.S. Senate 204 Russell Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510-0001


Dear Senator Allen:



A tlat fee tax could cause many low-volume long distance users, like students, prepaid wireless users, senior citizens and low-income residential and rural consumers, to give up their phones due to unaffordable monthly increases on their bills. Shifting the funding burden of the USF from high volume to low-volume users is radical and unnecessary. In addition, it would have a highly detrimental effect on small businesses all across America. The Keep USF Fair Coalition, of which 1 am a member, keeps me informed about the USF issue with monthly newsletters and up to date information on their website, including links to FCC infomation. While I am aware that federal law does not require companies to recover, or "pass along" these fees to their customers, the reality is that they do. As a consumer I would like ensure I am charged fairly. If the FCC goes to a numbers taxed, my service will cost more. And according to the Coalition's recent meetings with top FCC officials, the FCC has plans to change to a flat fee system soon and without legislation.

I will continue to monitor developments on the issue and continue to,spread the word to my community. I request you pass along my concerns to the FCC on my behalf, letting them know how a flat fee tax could disproportionately affect those in your constituency.


Sincerely,

Melissa Scoggins


Joe Peone

42 Chestnt st. SenecaFa1ls.W 13148

Senator Hillary Clinton U.S. Senate 476 Russell Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510-0001


EWD &JNSPEcTED

DEc 2005

FCC - MAILm OM .

Dear Senator Clinton:



A flat fee tax could cause many low-volume long distance users, like students, prepaid wireless users, senior citizens and low-income residential and rural consumers, to give up their phones due to unaffordable monthly increases on their hills. Shifting the funding burden of the USF from high volume to low-volume users is radical and unnecessary. In addition, it would have a highly detrimental effect on small businesses all across America. The Keep USF Fair Coalition, of which I am a member, keeps me informed ahout the USF issue with monthly newslctters and up to date information on their website, including links to FCC information. While I am aware that federal law does not require companies to recover, or "pass along" these fees to their customers, the reality is that thcy do. As a consumer I would like ensure 1 am charged fairly. If the FCC goes to a numbers taxed, my service will cost more. And according to the Coalition's recent meetings with top FCC officials, the FCC has plans to change to a flat fee system soon and without legislation.



Sincerely,

Joe Peone


Josephine Bedker ncr c 1005 1721 W. U.S. 10 , Scottville, MI 49454

YL" -

11:53AM

Representative Pete Hoekstra U.S. House of Representatives 2234 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, DC 20515-0001


Dear Representative Hoekstra:

1 have serious concerns regarding the Federal Communications Commissions' (FCC) position to change the Universal Service Fund (USF) collection method to a monthly flat fee. Many of your constituents, including me, my friends, family and neighbors, will be negatively impacted by the unfair change proposed by the FCC.

As you know, USF i s currently collected on a revenue basis. People who use more pay more into the system. If the FCC changes that system to a flat fee, that means that someone who uses one thousand minutes a month of long distance, pays the same amount into the fund as someone who uses zero minutes of long distance a month. Constituents who use their limited resources wisely should not be penalized for doing so.

A flat fee tax could cause many low-volume long distance users, like students, prepaid wireless users, senior citizens and low-income residential and m a l consumers, to give up their phones due to unaffordable monthly increases on their bills. Shifting the funding burden of the USF from high volume to low-volume users is radical and unnecessary. In addition, it would have a highly detrimental effect on small businesses all across America. The Keep USF Fair Coalition, of which I am a member, keeps me informed about the USF issue with monthly newsletters and up to date information on their website, including links to FCC information. While I am aware that federal law does not require companies to recover, or "pass along" these fees to their customers, the reality is that they do. As a consumer I would like ensure I am charged fairly. If the FCC goes to a numbers taxed, my service will cost more. And according to the Coalition's recent meetings with top FCC officials, the FCC has plans to change to a flat fee system soon and without legislation.

1 will continue to monitor developments on the issue and continue to spread the word to my community. I request you pass along my concerns to the FCC on my behalf, letting them know bow a flat fee tax could disproportionately affect those in your constituency.


Sincerely,

Josephine Bedker


I RECEIVED &IINSPEMED I DEC 6 2005

Kay Durman 5072 Cherokee St. , Pocatello, ID 83204

FCC - MAILROOM Govember 2,2005 11 2 6 AM

Senator Larry Craig US. Senate 520 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510-0001


Dear Senator Craig:

1 have serious concerns regarding the Federal Communications Commissions' (FCC) position to change the Universal Service Fund (USF) collection method to a monthly flat fee. Many of your constituents, including me, my family and neighbors, will be negatively impacted by the unfair change proposed by the FCC.

As you know, USF is currently collected on a revenue basis. People who use more pay more into the system. If the FCC changes that system to a flat fee, that means that someone who uses one thousand minutes a month of long distance, pays the same amount into the fund as someone who uses zero minutes of long distance a month. Constituents who use their limited resources wisely should not he penalized for doing so. My 94-year-old mother-in-law has seen her phone bill almost double with the constant addition of fees by government agencies and special-interest groups.

A flat fee tax could cause many low-volume long distance users, like students, prepaid wireless users, senior citizens and low-income residential and rural consumers, to give up their phones due to unaffordable monthly increases on their bills. Shifhng the funding burden of the USF from high volume to low-volume users is radical and unnecessary. In addition, it would have a highly detrimental effect on small businesses all across America. The Keep USF Fair Coalition, of which I am a member, keeps me informed about the USF issue with monthly newsletters and up to date information on their website, including links to FCC information. While I am aware that federal law does not require companies to recover, or "pass along" these fees to their customers, the reality is that they do. As a consumer I would like ensure I am charged fairly. If the FCC goes to a numbers taxed, my service will cost more. And according to the Codition's recent meetings with top FCC officials, the FCC has plans to change to a flat fee system soon and without legislation.

I request you pass along my concerns to the FCC on my behalf, letting them know how a flat fee tax could disproportionately affect those in your constituency.


Sincerely, .~ .. ,:,'. ~

. , , . . . . . , , I

Kay Durman

. , ,,. . , cc: FCC Cliair Kevin M d n , ,Congress : , I . , , , . , . :. I . -

:I, ', .,I .; ':

I' I , . , I

, , .

. . j . . , . ~ . .

, . . .. , . , / , I . , , , . , , ,.,, . ,,.

, , . . , ? . r : ' , . l i ' , i

. ,.. ! , . , . , .

i ;, . , ,

I DEC 2005 I

! Donald Gill I

I bd i I FPS

3986 Lakeland Rd , Saukville, WI 53080-1318

December 1,2005 12:04 PM

Senator Herb Kohl U.S. Senate 330 Hart Senate Ofice Building Washington, DC 20510-0001


Dear Senator Kohl:

1 have serious concerns regarding the Federal Communications Commissions' (FCC) position to change the Universal Service Fund (USF) collection method to a monthly flat fee. Many of your constituents, including me, my friends, family and neighbors, will be negatively impacted by the unfair change proposed by the FCC.


A flat fee tax could cause many low-volume long distance users, like students, prepaid wireless users, senior citizens and low-income residential and rural consumers, to give up their phones due to unaffordable monthly increases on their bills. Shifting the funding burden of the USF from high volume to low-volume users is radical and unnecessary. In addition, it would have a highly detrimental effect on small businesses all across America. The Keep USF Fair Coalition, of which I am a member, keeps me informed ahout the USF issue with monthly newsletters and up to date information on their website, including links to FCC information. While I am aware that federal law does not require companies to recover, or "pass along" these fees to their customers, the reality is that they do. As a consumer 1 would like ensure I am charged fairly. If the FCC goes to a numbers taxed, my service will cost more. And according to the Coalition's recent meetings with top FCC officials, the FCC has plans to change to a flat fee system soon and without legislation.

I will continue to monitor developments on the issue and continue to spread the word to my community. I request you pass along my concerns to the FCC on my behalf, letting them know bow a flat fee tax could disproportionately affect those in your constituency.

Thank you for your continued work and 1 look forward to hearing about your position on this matter

Sincerely,

Donald Gill

CC

FCC General Email Box

IRECENED &YNSPECTED

DEC b 2005 Sylvia Kichey

7410 Lake Breeze Dr. , Fort Myers, FL 33907-8056 t uu/---

December 1, 2005 Il:53 AM

Senator Me1 Martinez United States Senate 3 17 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510-0001


Dear Senator Martinez:



A flat fee tax could cause many low-volume long distance users, like students, prepaid wireless users, senior citizens and low-income residential and rural consumers, to give up their phones due to unaffordahle monthly increases on their bills. Shifting the funding burden of the USF !?om high volume to low-volume users is radical and unneccssary. In addition, it would have a highly detrimental effect on small businesses all across America. The Keep USF Fair Ccalition, of which 1 am a member, keeps me informed about the USF issue with monthly newsletters and up to date information on their website, including links to FCC information. While I am aware that federal law does not require companies to recover, or "pass along" these fees to their customers, the reality is that they dc. As a consumer I would like ensure I am charged fairly. If the FCC goes to a numbers taxed, my service will cost more. And according to the Coalition's recent meetings with top FCC officials, the FCC has plans to changc to a flat fee system soon and without legislation.



Sincerely,

Sylvia Richey

CC:

FCC General Email Box

Lee Ann Heiden 145 Charlton S t , Beaver Dam, WI 53916

Senator Russell Feingold U.S. Senate 506 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510-0001

Sub~ject: Re: Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service CC Docket 96-45

Dear Senator Feingold:

I have serious concerns regarding the Federal Communications Commissions' (FCC) position to changc the Universal Service Fund (USF) collection method to a monthly flat fee. Many of your constituents, including me, my friends, family and neighbors, will be negatively impacted by the unfair change proposed by the FCC.


A flat fee tax could cause many low-voime long distance users, like students, prepaid wireless users, senior citizens and low-income residential A d rural consumers. to give up their phones due to unaffordable monthly increases on their bills. Shifting the funding burden of the USF from high volume to low-volume useriis radical and unnecessary. In addition, it would have a highly detrimental effect on small businesses all across America. The Keep USF Fair Coalition, of which I am a member, keeps me informed about the USF issue with monthly newsletters and up to date information on their website, including links to FCC information. While I am aware that federal law does not require companies to recover, or "pass along" these fees to their customers, the reality is that they do. Asa consumer I would like ensure I am charged fairly. If the FCC goes to a numbers.taxed,.my service wil,l cost more. And according to the Coalition's recent meetings with top FCC officials; the FCC has plans to change to a tlat fee system soon and without legislation.

I will continue to monitor developmenfs. on'the'issbe & ~ d co.ntique'tq sprGad the word to my community. I request you pass along mycdnqems 'to how a flat fee tax could disproportion&ly'.affect thos

. I ,..

..,'.'!, . , ,... FCC on,qy.b$half, letting them know $o,iu CbnstiGency.

- --


Sincerely,

Lce Ann Heiden


f R E m INSPECTED 1 Dennis Kozlowski

1100 South Caln road, Coatesville, PA 19320 DkC b LUU3

'"~@%i~Tikt%~

Dear Senator Specter:

I have serious concerns regarding the Federal Communications Commissions' (FCC) position to change the Universal Service Fund (USF) collection method to a monthly flat fee. Many of your constituents, including me, my friends, family and neighbors, will he negatively impacted by the unfair change proposed by the FCC.


A flat fee tax could cause many low-volume long distance users, like students, prepaid wireless users, senior citizens and low-income residential and rural consumers, to give up their phones due to unaffordable monthly increases on their bills. Shifting the funding burden of the USF from high volume to low-volume users is radical and unnecessary. In addition, it would have a highly detsimenzal effect on small businesses all across America. The Keep USF Fair Coalition, of which I am a member, keeps me informed about the USF issue with monthly newsletters and up to date information on their website, including links to FCC information. While I am aware that federal law does not require companies to recover, or "pass along" these fees to their customers, the reality is that they do. As a consumer I would like to ensure I am charged fairly. If the FCC goes to a numbers taxed, my service will cost more. And according to the Coalition's recent meetings with top FCC officials, the FCC has plans to change to a flat fee system soon and without legislation.


Thank you for your continued work and 1 look forward to hearing about your position on this matter

Sincerely,

Dennis Kozlowski


Documents

Sehba Mohiuddin IL 604401 DEC - 62005 Willard Hart I FCC- MAll 2630 Onalaska Ave. , La Crosse, WI 54603 I November 2,2005 12:23 AM Representative Ron Kind US House of Representatives