20070629final_order_no_30360.pdf

Office ofthe Secretary
Service Date
June 29, 2007
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF EDGE)
WIRELESS, LLC FOR DESIGNATION AS AN
ELIGIBLE TELECOMMUNICATIONS
CARRIER UNDER 47 D.c. ~ 214(e)(2)
CASE NO. EDG-07-
ORDER NO. 30360
On January 22, 2007, Edge Wireless, LLC filed an Application for designation as an
eligible telecommunications carrier (ETC) for service areas in Idaho that are currently served by
other carriers. Edge is a commercial mobile radio service (CMRS) carrier providing "mobile
service" as defined in 47 U.C. ~ 153(27). Edge currently provides cellular service in south-
central and southeast Idaho. Edge requested that it be designated as eligible to receive all
available support from the federal Universal Service Fund (USF) and that it be approved to
participate in the Lifeline program. 47 C.R. ~ 54.201(d).
On February 12 2007, the Commission issued a Notice of Application and Modified
Procedure in this matter. Order No. 30240. The Commission s Notice also set a deadline for
intervention and invited interested persons to comment on the Application no later than March
, 2007. Intervention was granted to WWC Holdings dba Alltel and to the Idaho Telephone
Association (ITA). Order Nos. 30264 and 30265 , respectively. On March 13 , 2007, the ITA
filed a "Protest and Comments" arguing that it was unable to file comments because it was
precluded from reviewing Edge s confidential two-year network improvement plan.
On March 28, 2007, the Commission issued Order No. 30286 extending the comment
period so that ITA and Edge could make arrangements for ITA to review Edge s network
improvement plan. The Commission directed that after reviewing the confidential document
Edge and ITA shall inform the Commission "whether each believes a hearing is necessary or if
the matter may continue to be considered by Modified Procedure." Order No. 30286 at 2. The
two parties were to advise the Commission no later than April 25 , 2007. In response to Order
No. 30286, ITA filed a "Motion for Staff Investigation." On May 1 , 2007 , Edge filed an
Errata" correction to its Application. On May 3 , 2007, Staff and Edge each filed replies
opposing ITA's Motion.
For the reasons set out below, we deny ITA's Motion and grant Edge s Application
for ETC status as modified below.
ORDER NO. 30360
BACKGROUND
A. The ETC Application
In its Application, Edge seeks ETC designation in certain non-rural and rural areas
that are also served by 11 local exchange companies (LECs). See Idaho Code ~~ 62-603(6) and
(10). Edge proposes to serve 33 non-rural wire centers! served by Qwest Corporation in the
Magic Valley and southeastern Idaho. Edge also requests ETC status to serve a total of 44 rural
wire centers2 served by ten rural telephone carriers including: Albion Telephone Company (4
wire centers); CenturyTel ofIdaho (3); Custer Communications (4); Direct Communications (3);
Filer Mutual (4); Fremont Telecom (3); Mud Lake (5); Project Mutual (5); Silver Star-Teton
Telephone (3); and Silver Star Communications (3). Application, Exh. C. Most ofthe rural wire
centers are served by members of the ITA. ITA Protest at 1; Motion for Staff Investigation at 2
Edge states in its Application that it will offer the federally designated "universal"
services listed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) at 47 C.R. ~ 54.101(a).
Application at 5; see also Idaho Code ~ 62-61OC. Edge states that it stands ready to provide the
following universal services which are supported by the federal USF: (1) voice grade access to
the public switch telephone network; (2) local calling; (3) dual tone multi-frequency signaling
(or its functional equivalent); (4) single-party service; (5) access to emergency services (e.
911); (6) access to operator services and directory assistance; (7) access to interexchange long-
distance service; and (8) toll limitation service for qualifying low-income customers. Edge
maintains that it is a full-service wireless carrier that offers all of the universal services
throughout its licensed service area utilizing its own facilities. Id. Besides Idaho, Edge also
operates in portions of northern California, southeastern Oregon, and northwestern Wyoming.
Id. at 2.
As required by FCC rule, Edge plans to advertise the availability of each of the
universal services listed in the prior paragraph throughout its service area. 47 C.R. ~ 54.201.
The method of advertising may include newspapers, magazines, radio, direct mailings, public
One or more "wire centers" typically comprise a geographic area called a local telephone exchange.
2 Edge initially sought to serve 45 rural wire centers, including the Stanley wire center purportedly served by Custer.
Application, Exh. C, p. 2. However, the Stanley wire center is actually served by the rural ILEC Midvale Telephone
and serving just the Stanley wire center would presumably "require the Commission to redefine the Midvale study
area." App. Errata at 1-2. Consequently, Edge subsequently deleted the Stanley wire center from its proposed ETC
service area.
ORDER NO. 30360
exhibits and displays, bill inserts, and telephone directory advertising. Edge also intends to
promote "Lifeline" service3 through print advertising and direct outreach by Edge s sales staff to
community health, welfare and employment offices as well as to Indian tribes. Application at
13. The proposed ETC service area includes tribal areas of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes. Edge
states that it provided a copy of its Application to the Tribes per 47 C.R. ~ 54.202(d). Id. at 14.
B. Commission Authority to Designate ETC Status
The Commission has the jurisdiction and authority to designate carriers as ETCs
pursuant to the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 and FCC rules. 47 U.C. ~ 214(e)(1)-
(2); 47 C.R. ~ 54.201. Under the federal Telecom Act, the Commission is also responsible for
the annual ETC certification process for Idaho service areas. 47 C.R. ~ 54.313-.314. Annual
certification allows carriers to receive federal USF revenues each year.
Under Idaho law, the Commission has the "full power and authority to implement the
federal Telecommunications Act of 1996. . ..Idaho Code ~ 62-615(1). The Commission is
also authorized to promulgate any "procedures necessary to carry out the duties authorized or
required by" the federal Act. Idaho Code ~~ 62-610D, 62-615(3).
C. ETC Eligibility Requirements
To be designated an ETC, the telecommunications provider must: (1) be a "common
carrier" as defined by 47 U.C. ~ 153(10); (2) offer throughout its proposed ETC service area(s)
the universal services (set forth above and in 47 C.R. ~ 54.101(a)) either by using its own
facilities or a combination of its own facilities and the resale of another carrier s services; and (3)
must advertise the availability of its universal service offering and the charges for such services
using media of general distribution. 47 U.C. ~ 214(e)(1).
For those ETC applicants seeking designation in an area already served by an
incumbent ETC, the federal Telecom Act further provides that "(u)pon request and consistent
with the public interest, convenience, and necessity, the State commission may, in the case of an
area served by a rural telephone company, and shall, in the case of all other areas, designate more
than one common carrier as an (ETC)." 47 US.C. ~ 214(e)(2). In addition, before designating
3 Lifeline service provides eligible low-income residential customers with a credit on their monthly telephone bill
equal to the FCC's subscriber line charge. In addition, the Idaho Telecommunications Service Assistance Program
(IT SAP) also provides monthly credits to eligible residential customers. Idaho Code ~~ 56-901(1) and 56-902(1).Edge will not promote "Linkup" service "because Edge does not charge for activation of wireless services.
ORDER NO. 30360
an additional ETC "for an area served by a rural telephone company, the State commission shall
find that the designation is in the public interest." Id.
In March 2005 , the FCC encouraged State commissions to adopt state-specific ETC
requirements when designating ETCs pursuant to 47 U.C. ~ 214(e)(2). In the Matter of the
Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, Report Order CC Docket No. 96-, 20
c.C.R. 6371 (March 17, 2005) (hereinafter ETC Report Order
).
In August 2005 the
Commission issued Order No. 29841 setting out Idaho-specific eligibility and reporting
requirements for ETC designation.
1. Additional Eligibility Requirements.In Order No. 29841 the Commission
adopted four additional eligibility requirements for ETC designation in Idaho.
applicant must adequately address the following requirements:
The ETC
The commitment and ability to provide supported services: The ETC
applicant must certify that it will: (a) provide service on a timely basis to
requesting customers within the applicant's service area where the
applicant's network already passes the potential customer s premises; and
(b) provide service within a reasonable period of time, if the potential
customer is within the applicant's licensed service area but outside its
existing network coverage if service can be provided at reasonable cost
by:
Modifying or replacing the requesting customer s equipment;
Deploying roof-mounted antenna or other equipment;
Adjusting the nearest cell tower;
11.
111.
IV.Adjusting network or customer facilities;
Reselling services from another carrier s facilities to provide
service; or
VI.Employing, leasing or constructing an additional cell site, cell
extender, repeater, or other similar equipment.
The ability to remain functional in emergencies: The ETC applicant must
demonstrate it has a reasonable amount of backup power to ensure
functionality without an external power source; is able to re-route traffic
around damaged facilities; and is capable of managing traffic spikes
resulting from emergency situations.
A commitment to consumer protection and service: The ETC applicant
must certify that it will comply with all applicable service quality
standards and consumer protection rules. In addition, all wireless carriers
ORDER NO. 30360
seeking ETC designation must agree to comply with the Cellular
Telecommunications and Internet Association s Consumer Code for Wire
Service ("CTIA Consumer Code
Local usage plans: The ETC applicant must provide a description of its
local usage plan and description of the local usage planes) of the
incumbent local exchange carrier (ILEC).
2. Reporting Requirements. In addition to eligibility requirements, the Commission
required ETC applicants to comply with six annual reporting requirements. Order No. 29841
App. The six reporting requirements are described briefly below.
Two-year network improvement plan and progress report: The network
improvement plan must describe with specificity any proposed
improvements or upgrades to the applicant's network on a wire center-
by-wire center basis throughout its proposed ETC service area. The
network improvement plan shall include the projected start date and
completion for each network improvement and the specific geographic
areas where the improvements will be made. The progress report must
include maps detailing the ETC's progress toward meeting its target
plans, an explanation of how universal service support was received and
how it was used to improve signal quality, coverage, capability, and an
explanation regarding any network improvement targets which have not
fulfilled.
Outages: The annual report must include detailed information on any
outages that potentially affect: (a) at least 10% of the end users served in
a designated service area; or (b) a 911 special facility.
Unfulfilled service requests: The annual report must include the number
of requests for service from potential customers within the ETC's service
area that were unfilled in the previous year. The ETC carrier shall also
detail how it attempted to provide service to those potential customers.
Customer complaints: The annual report must include the number of
complaints per 1 000 handsets or lines.
Service quality and consumer protection certificate: The annual report
must include certification that the ETC is complying with applicable
service quality standards and consumer protection rules.
Description of the applicant's local usage plan: The annual report must
include a description of the ETC's local usage planes) and a description
of the ILEC's local usage planes).
Order No. 29841 , App.
ORDER NO. 30360
D. Procedural History
As previously mentioned, Order No. 30240 required interested persons to file written
comments regarding Edge s Application no later than March 14, 2007. Supporting comments
were filed by the Commission Staff and ITA filed a Protest and Comment. On March 22, 2007
Edge filed Reply Comments to the ITA and Staff comments. In its Protest and Comments, ITA
raised substantive and procedural issues, primarily concerning Edge s "ETC designation within
the service territories of ten rural telephone companies, eight of whom are ITA members.
Protest at 1.
1. ITA Protest.ITA's procedural issue was that Edge s ETC Application was
defective because "there is no public evidence demonstrating that the requested USF support '
in the public interest' and 'necessary to preserve and advance universal service,' as required by
federal law." ITA Protest at 3 (emphasis original). In particular, ITA claimed that it was not
able to review Edge s two-year network improvement plan because the plan was removed from
the public record pursuant to Edge s claim of confidentiality. ITA claimed it had "no means of
determining whether the Application) conforms to Commission Order No. 29841' s
requirements regarding network improvement plans.Id. at 4. ITA urged the Commission to
either dismiss the ETC Application or rule that Modified Procedure is not appropriate in this
case, or "schedule further proceedings.Id. at 1.
2. Edge Reply. Edge noted in its reply to ITA's procedural protest that ITA had not
requested a copy of any of the confidential material or otherwise sought to review the
information. Edge Reply Comments at 4. Edge argued that the ITA did not avail itself of any of
the Commission procedures for providing limited access to confidential information, including
the use of Protective Orders. Id. Edge urged the Commission to reject IT A's eleventh-hour plea.
Id.
3. Commission Order.In Order No. 30286, the Commission put aside the
substantive issues and addressed ITA's procedural issue concerning its inability to review Edge
two-year network improvement plan. The Commission directed the parties to negotiate an
arrangement that would allow ITA to review the Company s two-year improvement plan after
executing a Confidentiality Agreement. After review of the confidential improvement plan
ORDER NO. 30360
occurs, the Commission directed the parties to "inform the Commission as to whether it believes
a hearing is necessary in this matter or if the matter may continue to be processed by Modified
Procedure." Order No. 30286 at 2-3. The parties were to advise the Commission no later than
April 25, 2007.
4. ITA's Subsequent Motion. In response to the Commission s directive, ITA filed a
Motion for a Staff Investigation." In its Motion, the IT A did not request a hearing but requested
the Commission direct its Staff to conduct further investigations and issue a report to the
Commission and parties. .." ITA Motion at 2. Both Staff and Edge filed replies opposing
IT A's Motion. With this procedural background, we now turn to the substantive issues presented
in this case.
DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS
A. Non-Rural Wire Centers
In its Application, Edge Wireless requests ETC designation for 33 non-rural wire
centers served by Qwest Corporation in central and southeastern Idaho. Application, Exh. C.
Edge states in its Application that it already provides services to 24 counties in central and
southeastern Idaho. Application at 2. Edge maintains that it meets the state and federal
requirements for ETC designation in the 33 non-rural wire centers. In its comments, Staff also
asserts that Edge meets all the federal and state ETC requirements set out in Commission Order
No. 29841 concerning the ETC request for non-rural wire centers.
Commission Findings: We find that Edge meets the statutory requirements for ETC
designation as set out in 47 U.C. ~ 214(e)(1) and Commission Order No. 29841. We recognize
that the federal Telecommunications Act treats non-rural and rural service areas differently for
the purposes of ETC designation. When a carrier meets the statutory requirements set out in ~
214( e)(1) for a non-rural area served by an ILEC, the statute provides that the Commission shall
designate more than one common carrier as an ETC. 47 U.C. ~ 214(e)(2).
We further find that designating Edge as an ETC in the requested non-rural service
areas is consistent with "the public interest, convenience, and necessity" pursuant to ~ 214( e )(2).
In particular, we note that Edge has a significantly larger local calling area than Qwest's local
calling areas in the Magic Valley and in eastern Idaho. Edge s local calling area includes most
of central and southeastern Idaho and its calling plans include unlimited nationwide long-
distance calling at no additional charge. Application at 6-7. In addition, granting ETC
ORDER NO. 30360
designation will benefit consumers by offering services of another competitor and may be
beneficial to eligible recipients of Idaho s Telecommunications Service Assistance Program
(ITSAP) or Lifeline service. More specifically, we note that Edge will offer "Tribal Lifeline
service to qualified residents of the Fort Hall Reservation for as little as $1.00 per month.
Application at 14. Finally, we observe that no commenter specifically opposed Edge
Application for the non-rural (Qwest) wire centers and at least one public commenter (City of
Jerome), urged us to designate Edge as an ETC carrier in non-rural wire centers served by
Qwest. Consequently, we grant Edge s Application for an ETC designation in the non-rural wire
centers.
B. Rural Wire Centers
Edge also seeks ETC designation for 44 rural wire centers.4 Our review of ETC
requests for rural wire centers is more rigorous because ETC designation is not mandatory under
47 U.C. ~ 214(e)(2). We have held previously that those seeking ETC designation in rural
areas have the burden of demonstrating that the public interest would be served by granting their
applications. Order Nos. 29841 and 30212. The public commenters and Staff recommended
ETC designation for Edge.
1. Public Comments. The Commission received four public comments supporting
Edge s bid for ETC designation. The City of Jerome stated that Edge has been providing service
to the City for several years. The City stated that additional coverage to outlying rural areas
would be beneficial to the City. Steven Young of Young & Young of Idaho lives and farms near
Acequia and Minidoka, Idaho. He supported ETC designation so that federal USF funds might
be used to build wireless facilities near Acequia and Minidoka.
The manager of Idaho Power Company s southern operation also supported Edge
ETC designation. He related that Idaho Power depends on Edge Wireless s communications to
serve energy customers in southern Idaho. He urged that ETC designation be approved so that
federal USF funds may be available to improve service in rural Idaho. Finally, the Bonneville
County Sheriffs Office uses Edge as its primary carrier for all mobile law enforcement
operations. ETC designation and access to the federal USF would allow Edge to provide
service in all areas of our County, including rural areas that now have limited and/or spotty
service for our emergency operations.
See supra note 2.
ORDER NO. 30360
2. Staff Comments Staff asserted that Edge has met all federal and state
requirements to be granted ETC status in the requested rural wire centers. Staff insisted that the
Company s two-year network improvement plan and the Company s emergency procedures
satisfy the standards contained in Order No. 29841. After reviewing the Company s entire
Application, the Staff indicated that Edge demonstrated "a serious commitment to provide
reliable, state-of-the-art telecommunications to rural wire center consumers." Staff Comments at
10. Staff stated that it believes the Company has sufficiently demonstrated "a commitment to
Idaho" as evident by the number of service/repair technicians located within the state as well as
locating a network operating center (NOC) located in Pocatello. Id. at 10. The Staff concluded
that "Edge s Idaho presence exceeds that of some ofILECs.Id.
3. ITA.In its initial Protest and subsequent Motion, ITA opposes Edge s ETC bid to
serve the rural wire centers. After reviewing Edge s two-year network improvement plan, ITA
maintains there are still two discrepancies with the ETC Application. First, IT A continues to
allege that Edge does not or will not serve "throughout" all of the rural wire centers that it seeks
ETC designation. Protest at 2; Motion at 3. IT A asserts that Edge does not have facilities
certain wire centers and Edge s two-year network improvement plan does not reveal that these
particular wire centers are scheduled for facilities in the next two years. Motion at 4
(confidential). For example, ITA notes that Edge has no facilities in 12 specific wire centers
including the four wire centers served by Custer Telephone Cooperative. Id. at 3-
(confidential).
ITA's second issue is related to the first. ITA alleges that because Edge will not
serve "all the wire centers, or the entirety of some wire centers " it will be "cream skimming
(i., serving) only the most densely populated parts of the wire centers, or some wire centers and
not others. Motion at 5-6. Consequently, IT A requested that the Commission direct the Staff to
conduct an investigation to ensure that Edge s ETC Application will not result in "cream
skimming." Rural cream skimming occurs when a competitor (such as Edge) seeks "to serve
only the low-cost, high revenue customers in a rural telephone company s study area. This is a
concern because universal service support is calculated based on a study area-wide average of a
rural telephone company that serves customers in both high-cost and low-cost areas throughout
its study area." Order No. 29541 at 16 (emphasis original).
ORDER NO. 30360
IT A requested that the Staff determine: (1) if Edge lacks facilities and the ability to
provide service in the rural wire centers listed in its Application; (2) whether Edge is serving
only the most profitable and least cost areas of those wire centers where it is serving only a
portion of the area; and (3) whether Edge s claim of network coverage is accurate. Motion at 6.
4. Staff Objection Staff objected to ITA's Motion for two reasons. First, Staff
maintained that IT A has misconstrued the standard for granting ETC status. Staff argued that an
ETC applicant "is not required to demonstrate a pre-existing ability to serve an entire service
area nor even an entire wire center before being granted an ETC designation. Rather, an ETC
applicant must demonstrate a commitment to fulfill all reasonable requests for service within the
proposed service area." Staff Objection at 2. Second, Staff argued that it is not a prudent use of
Staffs time to conduct an investigation of Edge s "network coverage.Id. at 3. Staff noted that
the Commission has required that ETCs must file annual reports that include: (1) a two-year
network improvement plan and progress report, and (2) a list of unfilled service requests. The
annual reports are then used to determine how well an ETC "is performing based upon stated
commitments in its ETC application and whether it will be approved for recertification by the
Commission.Id.
5. Edge s Reply to the ITA Motion. Edge urged the Commission to deny ITA'
Motion because it is "based on a misreading of the law, obfuscation of the facts, and is intended
solely to further delay" the proceeding. Edge Reply at 1. Edge maintained that the IT A has
misconstrued the federal law by asserting that an ETC applicant must offer the universal services
throughout the proposed ETC area using its own facilities. Edge maintained that this position "
simply wrong.Id. at 2. Edge insisted that federal law and this Commission s procedural Order
regarding ETC designation provides that an ETC applicant can offer the universal services in
three ways: (1) through its own facilities; (2) through the facilities of other carriers; (3) or by
constructing new facilities. Edge insisted that ITA's Motion erroneously focuses on where Edge
has constructed wireless facilities to date. Edged insisted that it has sufficient FCC license
spectrum to provide service to the entire proposed ETC area. Id. at 4. Besides radio spectrum
Edge has a customer service center in Idaho Falls and a switch in Pocatello. Id.
Obtaining ETC designation and federal USF revenue will enable Edge to build
additional cell sites. Since initiating Idaho service in December 2000 with 32 cell sites, Edge
ORDER NO. 30360
now has 147 cell sites, adding an average of 19 sites per year. Id. Edge is committed to
building out the rural wire centers and has the proven ability to do so.Id.
Commission Findings: We first address ITA's Motion. In its Motion, IT A asserted
that Edge will not serve "throughout" the proposed service area. In essence, IT A argues that
Edge cannot meet the requirement to provide the Section 214( e)(1) requirement that Edge
provide service "throughout the service area" because Edge does not have existing facilities in all
the rural wire centers it proposes to service. ITA Motion at 2-3. For example, ITA insisted that
Edge has no facilities in 12 specific wire centers including the four Custer Telephone wire
centers. ITA Motion at 3-4 (partially confidential).
1. Commitment to Serve "Throughout."Both Edge and the Staff maintain that the
ITA has construed "throughout the service area" standard too narrowly. We agree. An ETC
applicant is not required to demonstrate that it has the present or current ability to serve the entire
service area. As we stated in Order No. 29841 set out above, an applicant for ETC designation
must certify that it will provide service to a customer outside the applicant's existing network
coverage within a reasonable period if service can be provided at a reasonable cost by examining
the six alternatives. Supra at p. 4; Order No. 29841 , App. at 2; 47 C.R. ~ 54.202(a)(1)(B);
ETC Report and Order 20 F.R. 6371 at ~ 22 (2005). Indeed, both the FCC and this
Commission require an ETC to "provide service within a reasonable period of time . . . if service
can be provided at reasonable cost" by employing any of the six delivery options. 47 C.R. ~
54.202(a)(1)(B) and Order No. 29841 , App. at 2 (emphasis added). Both the FCC and the
Commission recognize that there may be instances when an ETC cannot serve a customer using
one of the six delivery options. The FCC observed that if "an ETC applicant determines that it
cannot serve the customer using one or more of these methods, then the ETC must report the
unfulfilled request to the Commission within 30 days after making such determination.Id.
2. Network Improvement Plan Besides the ETC applicant's "commitment" to
reasonably serve customers outside its network coverage, the Commission also requires
applicants to submit a two-year network improvement plan. As laid out in our Appendix to
Order No. 29841 , the commitment to provide service and the network improvement plan go in
hand-in-hand. In the present case, Edge s network improvement plan lists the proposed
improvements or upgrades to its network on a wire center-by-wire center basis throughout its
proposed ETC service area. Edge s improvement plan contains a timetable that begins in the
ORDER NO. 30360
third quarter of 2007 and continues through the first quarter of 2009. The plan includes detail
such as estimated coverage, type of construction and total project costs. The commitment to
serve, the network improvement plan and the annual reporting requirements are all designed to
reveal instances when an ETC applicant is not providing reasonable service and to disclose how
Edge is utilizing its federal USF support.
Returning to ITA's Motion, ITA claimed that Edge has no facilities in 12 specific
wire centers including the 4 Custer Telephone wire centers. However, Edge asserts and we find
that it currently serves, or has indicated in its build-out plan that it intends to serve, 4 of the 12
wire centers listed in ITA's Motion. Anderson Affidavit at 2-3 (confidential). Consequently, we
find that ITA has misconstrued the requirements for granting ETC status. We further find that
Edge adequately demonstrated that it has facilities or plans to construct facilities in 8 out of the
12 wire centers alleged by ITA as having no Edge facilities. Moreover, the fact that Edge has no
present facilities in the four remaining wire centers is not a requirement for obtaining ETC status.
3. Cream Skimming. We next address ITA's cream skimming issue. ITA'
argument appears to be that because Edge does not have existing facilities or plans to construct
facilities in all wire centers, then "Edge s Application is, in effect, a request for ETC designation
in a partial wire center" or some wire centers but not others. IT A Motion at 4. The potential for
cream skimming rises when an ETC applicant seeks designation in a disproportionate share of
the higher-density wire centers in a rural ILEC's service area. ETC Report Order at ~ 49.
In its Application, Edge seeks ETC designation for 44 wire centers served by 10 rural
ILECs. More specifically, Edge seeks ETC status matching the entire rural service areas (study
areas) of the 10 ILECs. Application, Exh. C. Because Edge proposes to serve the entire service
area of the 10 ILECs, the issue of cream skimming is not present. As the FCC recognized, when
an applicant "requests ETC designation for an entire rural service area, it does not create cream
skimming concerns because the affected ETC is required to serve all wire centers in the
designated service area.ETC Report Order at ~ 49. As we previously noted, an ETC
applicant does not need to deploy facilities to serve all requested wire centers but must provide
service within a reasonable period of time. Consequently, we find that the cream skimming
analysis is not necessary in this case because Edge does not seek ETC designation below the
study area level of the 10 rural telephone companies. For the reasons set out above, we deny
ITA's Motion for a Staff Investigation.
ORDER NO. 30360
After addressing ITA's Motion, the Commission must still determine whether Edge
meets the ETC eligibility requirements of Order No. 29841. These additional requirements
include how Edge functions in emergencies, and Edge s commitment to consumer protection and
services.
4. The Ability to Remain Functional in Emergencies. To demonstrate the ability to
remain functional during emergencies, an ETC applicant must show that it has a "reasonable
amount of backup power to ensure functionality without an external power source; is able to re-
route traffic around damaged facilities; and is capable of managing different traffic spikes
resulting from emergency situations." Order No. 29841 at 11. Staff asserted that Edge meets the
requirement to remain functional in emergencies. Staff Comments at 8-
We find that Edge s Application demonstrates its ability to remain functional during
emergency situations. In particular, Edge explained the use of backup support for their mobile
switching center and cell sites, its fault-tolerant network, its continuous (24 hours x 7 days)
network monitoring and outage resolution procedures, its cell on wheels (COW), its redundant
facilities, and has provided an inventory and regional availability of spare parts. Application at
11. We further find that the Application provides a detailed description of Edge s 911
capabilities including automatic numbering information (ANI) and automatic location
information (ALI) service. Id. at 8. Edge also has a team of technicians located within
southeastern Idaho equipped with a complement of spare equipment for cell sites, microwave
and other facilities. Finally, Edge has a network operations center in Pocatello.
5. Consumer Protection.Order No. 29841 requires that an ETC applicant certify
that it will comply "with all applicable service quality standards and consumer protection rules.
In addition, all wireless carriers seeking ETC designation must agree to comply with the Cellular
Telecommunications and Internet Association s Consumer Code for Wireless Service ('CTIA
Code " Order No. 29841 , App. at 3. Edge states in its Application that it will comply with all
applicable service quality standards, consumer protection rules, and the standards established by
the CTIA Consumer Code. Application at 15. Staff commented that the Company s Application
exhibits an understanding of the federal and state consumer service requirements for ETC
designation." Comments at 10.
5 We have previously addressed Edge s local usage plans and tribal notification.
ORDER NO. 30360
Based upon our review of the Application and Staff's comment , we find that Edge
has certified that it will comply with all applicable service quality standards and consumer
protection rules.
6. Summary. After reviewing Edge s Application and the comments in the case, we
find that Edge has satisfied the requirements for designation as an ETC carrier in the 44 rural
wire centers. We further find that the public interest will be served by designating Edge as an
additional ETC in the proposed service area. We conclude that Edge s commitment to provide
the universal services, its network improvement plan, its large local calling area, its record of
investing in Idaho, and its plans to remain functional during emergencies all demonstrate that
ETC designation is consistent with the public interest. Order Nos. 29841 at 4; 29541 at 6.
Although we continue to be concerned about the size of and demand on the federal USF, this
remains an issue to be addressed and resolved at the federal level. Order No. 29541 at 18-19.
ORDER
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that ITA's Motion for a Staff Investigation is
denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Edge Wireless s Application for designation as an
ETC in the 33 non-rural wire centers served by Qwest is granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Edge s Application for ETC designation in the 44
rural wire centers is granted. Edge shall comply with the ETC reporting and certification
requirements of Order No. 29841.
THIS IS A FINAL ORDER. Any person interested in this Order (or in issues finally
decided by this Order) or in interlocutory Orders previously issued in this Case No. EDG-07-
01 may petition for reconsideration within twenty-one (21) days of the service date of this Order
with regard to any matter decided in this Order or in interlocutory Orders previously issued in
this case. Within seven (7) days after any person has petitioned for reconsideration, any other
person may cross-petition for reconsideration. See Idaho Code ~~ 61-626 and 62-619.
ORDER NO. 30360
DONE by Order of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission at Boise, Idaho this ;2.,f( f+..
day of June 2007.
~~;;;~~
J&L
RSHA H. SMITH, COMMISSIONER
ATTEST:
L1.~ LD
/~7
JeinlD. Jewell
'rrimission Secretary
O:EDG-07-01 dh
ORDER NO. 30360