we get to the merits can i ask you about your standing in the subject so what exactly is the theory of standing for your organization is it is it based on increased administrative that not only does it go down to zero presently for customers research it goes down to zero for customers we serve in the future but perhaps more importantly we have a massive retroactive my ability exposure that has happened here because of the it at cost is diminished mess or nonexistent and i'm just i guess i'm not seeing in the record what that cost is to the providers who are providing a service that's not being  to every subscriber including those who are not uses your area so we have to buy the prevention allocate that bucket or service for that subscriber just the same as we have allocated to another subscriber who uses all of it and other subscriber uses some of it our cost if you keep it like a like a like a hamburger repos table right if i put it hammer on each of your judges tables and judges route you none of it judge edwards you half of it and judge  so i want to actually go quickly if i can through these rules and i want to start before seventy ad is for a seven and says bias plain language universal service support shall be provided day of the month we call it the snapshot is important because you actually see it out point time fill in the regulatory gap be prepared to that point time there was no date on which it carrier had to count all of its customers for the purpose of does not carve out an exception for subscribers for whom the fifteen day i'm here period has not and it is so if i can explain for a seventy two doesn't have an exemption the plaintext as a carrier three or ice terms for a seven says something about her is right if you continue to receive support there were continuous important it indicates that support is already being provided and that at some point a future it will only continue to be provided if something happens specifically for a seventy two says it carries only continue to receive support for subscribers if you're there don't use it as provided for in four or five ethe really that's important because the rule says is about what will happen going forward if and when a subscriber jurors are not to use it as governed by four or five in three we take a look at four or five be three and the relevant text says if a subscriber fails to use as  service within the fifteen a notice period will result in terminations so who for a five c e three rather four or five by explain terms says different provider if a subscriber fails to use within thirty days they carry house to provide fifteen days notice two thousand scriber and he or she has fifteen days in which to be sure they're not usage and it's very important because a reference to four or five ether contained in for a senate seat people we're talking about in this case have not sure yet but they have not had their fifteen days to cure and the reference in four hundred and seven c two goes the four of five b three which provides describers with fifteen days to cure if we is implementing a non users rule that gives consumers thirty days to use and fifteen to secure it's a forty five day period and the real play he says carries will only continue to receive support after this forty five dollars day period if the consumer uses or cures it doesn't say what happens during the fifteen get your ear if you did say that you would have to strike several words out of it if you took the f c c effectively dies it is so service subscribers to subscribers who have used the service i think you would have to insert the word not who have not used the service and likewise instead of or have cured their non usage i think you would have to say or have are imposed on not on losing the right to receive reimbursement but on continuing to receive reimbursement or can continue to receive reimbursement if the person as  buckets because they are either of these two buckets this rule does not apply to that this role is carefully worded it does not apply to that and because it doesn't apply for seven days language applies there is a way to read all it and that it carries right to continue to receive support for them and ceases under forty seven c two and under forty seven ed that is the way you read these three rules together th after service activation eligible telecommunication care shall only continue to receive service support for these to care for these two categories right people who have used it or who have cured it so by saying that it's outside of that i think you're admitting that you don't get the reimbursement because you only get universal support reimbursement if you fall under one of these two categories and you're saying that you're in a place that doesn't you cannot read out from the rules here the fifteen days that are provided for and for if i be three it says as provided for in four of five be three it doesn't end with this nine usage of the statue and what you're suggesting is perhaps to strike the words as provided for in four of five b three and i think the f c c would like that but it's a that's not the rule they wrote the rule they wrote contains that reference and that reference means that subscribers get fifteen days to queue art and by the way these has no explanation for the reference to four or five a three and has no explanation for why you are seven and a sense as it is with that mandate there is no specific person general concept here none whatsoever three rules can be read in perfect harmony administrator is accurate is it not right because the administrator can't make any new substantive rules are issued guidance contrary to the walls as you say but that guidance was allowed to stand on its website  subsection that respectfully counsel that doesn't make sense that's like saying if we have a rule that says we're just not going to reimburse you then you lose because we have a rule that says when i'm going to reimburse you i'm trying to understand they're saying that they are required to give service even during this non usage period they're required to give us service by your rules and they're saying as i understand it it makes no sense for them not to receive reimbursement for a period when they were flood do you agree with mr heitman is hamburger analogy right is the f c c effectively saying that these e t c is have to provide a hamburger whether or not somebody eats it and if someone doesn't satisfied to the extent that the non reimbursement order is if we assume that the non reimbursement order was consistent with the rules as you suggest then can the petitioner's challenge mean they're not able to sections where let me make sure i'm following you but i did think about this following you on this argument i find holiday or review ability whatever you're suggesting my understanding is they p petition for declaration right and the commission issued an order in response to that and gave the interpretations are are now subject to our consideration right correct that's a final order the two reviewable because there was confusion about what had gone up on the website i would agree with you if there was nothing more than interpretive rules being thrown on the website there's a question about review ability but they filed a declaration you could have said we're not responding the agency did respond and they responded with a final order and gave these interpretations which were not considering that's reviewable what am i missing your honor our point is that our a not your argument is that the order we issued is reasonable and certainly consistent with what we think we've always meant what we agree there was confusion so we took the but titian's for declaration and we responded and what we're doing we think is consistent with what we've always done that your argument right yes that is a very very well that is they aren't but that's a review of water as reasonable or you said that the snapshot date has nothing to do with this this is all just about c two but i'm not sure of that right didn't use the service for thirty days and the carrier cut the service off on day thirty wan that would be unlawful under this scheme correct ye time so you're imposing on the carriers this affirmative obligation to continue providing service after a thirty day period of non usage and then you say in in four hundred and seven a support is based on the actual customer service directly as of the st date of the month and i for a while i was wondering if us if someone who hadn't used the service in thirty days might not be an actual qualifying customer but under this scheme and forty five dollars whatever it is they still have this legal obligation to continue providing the service and the snapshot date treats seems to treat them as a the snapshot date strengthens the petitioner's case correct yes there is and that and that is at least some reason for trying to construe four hundred and seven c two and four thousand and fifty three in harmony with that i'm your right specific qualifies the general but before we get to that we are seven c two and it means that we have fifteen days so you have a fifteen day period colliding with this one day and the only way that you give all three of these rules meaning is that you pay