20180425Idaho Cable Reply Comments.pdf

WILLIAMS BRADBI]RY
ATTORNEYSATLAW
April25,20l8
Ms. Diane Hanian
Commission Secretary
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
472W. Washington
Boise, ID 83702
Re: GNR-T-17-05
Dear Ms. Hanian:
Please find enclosed for filing the original and seven copies of Reply Comments of the
Idaho Cable Broadband Association in the above referenced case.
Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Please feel free to give me a call should
you have any questions.
Sincerely
R,^W,,,t'-
RLW
Enclosures
Ronald L. Williams
P.O. Box 388 - Boise, ID 83701
Phone: [phone] - www.williamsbradburv.com
Ronald L. Williams, ISB No. 3034
Williams Bradbury, P.C.
P.O. Box 388
Boise ID, 83701
Telephone : 2A84 44-6633
ron@wi I I iamsbradbury.com
Attorneys for Idaho Cable Broadband Association
I c=,
cioFr-:c, A)a)mN) C)(Jt fn
-rnqP(f
(3
4.ht" )
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION !!()
.L
IN THE MATTER OF THE 2017
REVIEW OF THE IDAHO
UNIVERSAL SERVICE FUND
CASE NO. GNR-T-17.05
IDAHO CABLE BROADBAND
ASSOCIATION
REPLY TO STAFF SUMMARY AND
REPORT
The Idaho Cable Broadband Association ("ICBA"), pursuant to Order No. 33999 issued in
this proceeding on February 23,2018, submits this Reply to Staff s Summary and Report filed in
this case on April 4,2018.
ICBA agrees with Commission Staffthat any change to the Idaho Universal Service Fund
("IUSF") would likely require legislation. However, ICBA disagrees with Staff that legislative
action is necessary for the IUSF to continue to meet its intended original purpose of ensuring that
Idahoans have access to reasonably-priced basic telecommunications services.l
Staff also recommends that "more participants - specifically, VoIP and cell providers -
must contribute to the fund if the fund's purpose is to be maintained." 2 For purposes of clarifying
the record in this case, the ICBA would note that its member cable companies that provide VoIP
service in Idaho in fact already contribute to the IUSF.
CHANGES TO THE IUSF'S PURPOSE OR CONTRIBUTION
METHODOLOGY, POOL OF CONTRIBUTORS, OR SUPPORT OF NON.
TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES REQUIRES LEGISLATION.
1 StaffSummary and Report, Page. 3
2 Id.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
I.
1
(b) .,. average per minute charge for MTS/WATS access services it provides is in
excess of one hundred (100%) of the weighted statewide average for the same or similar
MTS/WATS access services.6
State law grants the Commission the authority to designate, in addition to basic local exchange
service, telecommunications services that should be made available to consumers by ETCs.7
"Basic local exchange service means the provision of access lines to residential and small business
customers . . . [fod voice communication within a local exchange calling area."8 Accordingly,
IUSF support is limited to only telecommunications services, and does not include voice over
Internet protocol or broadband Internet access service.
The IUSF's contribution methodology and contributors are fixed by statute. State law
requires that the IUSF be funded by surcharges applied on a cents-per-line basis for local exchange
service and a percentage-basis for MTS and WATS services.e State law limits the application of
the surcharge to only local exchange and MTS and WATS type services.l0
' ICBA Position Paper filed January 31, 2018
o l.c. $ 62-610(t\.
' t.c. $$ 62-610(3) and 62-610(sXD).
u l.c. $ 62-610(3)(a) and (b).
'r.c. $ 6z-6toc(2).
't.c. $ 62-603(t).
'r.c. $ 6z-6to(2).
to Id.
2
As discussed in ICBA's Position Paper,3 incorporated herein by reference, the IUSF's
purpose is limited by statute to "maintaining the universal availability of local exchange service .
. . and to promot[ing] the availability of message telecommunications service at reasonably
comparable rates."4 In addition, only "eligible telecommunications carriers" ("ETC5";s whose
rates exceed the following may receive support from the IUSF:
(a) ... average residence and business local exchange service rates for one-party
single line service are in excess of one hundred and twenty-five percent (125%) of the
weighted statewide average rates for residence and business local exchange service rates
for one-party single line service respectively; and
Therefore, ICBA agrees with Staff that any change to the IUSF's pu{pose, contribution
methodology or pool of contributors, or the inclusion of non-telecommunications services as IUSF
supported services, requires legislation.
II. THE IUSF WILL CONTINUE TO MEET ITS INTENDED ORIGINAL
PURPOSE WITHOUT LEGISLATION.
ICBA disagrees with Staff that legislative action is necessary to preserve the IUSF's
intended original purpose. The IUSF ensures that consumers in all areas of the State have access
to basic local exchange service. At present, the IUSF disburses approximately $1.7 million to
eight (8) qualifying rural high-cost telephone companies. Neither Staff nor any participant in this
case have presented evidence that this amount is inadequate for these carriers to maintain facilities
necessary to deliver voice communications in high-cost areas. Further, the recipients have not
demonstrated a need for such support.
Therefore, if fuither action is contemplated by the Commission, ICBA recommends that
the Commission first determine the necessary cumulative cost of eligible high-cost support. Once
that amount is determined, only then should the Commission explore the various options Staff and
commenters offer to "modernize" the IUSF.
ICBA agrees that the IUSF should be supported equitably among functionally equivalent
services subject to statutory amendment. However, the Commission should not seek to expand the
size of the fund absent necessity. The public interest is served only when the Commission makes
fact-based decisions to disburse public funds in support of well-planned and targeted objectives.
III.PLANNING TO INCLUDE BROADBAND AS A SUPPORTED
SERVICE IS PREMATURE.
Efforts to "modernize" the IUSF should not include broadband Internet access service as a
service eligible for high-cost support. Even though State law does not today permit IUSF support
for non-telecommunications services, State universal service support for broadband would
duplicate federal efforts.
Idaho's incumbent carriers are receiving considerable amounts to bring broadband to high-
cost areas of the State.ll Centurylink receives annually approximately $6.3 million in federal
11 See ICBA Position Paper filed January 31,2018, pp. 3-5
J
Connect America Fund ("CAF") Phase II model support to deploy broadband to high-cost areas
of Idaho.12 Similarly, Frontier receives annually approximately $5.3 million in CAF funds for in
state high-cost broadband deployment.l3 In addition, thirteen (13) Idaho rural incumbents were
offered approximately $20.8 million in annual A-CAM federal model based support for a period
of ten (10) years.la More federal funding will become available to these same carriers through the
CAF Phase II reverse auction,ls the Mobility Fund, and the Remote Areas Fund.
The Commission should gather data concerning the effect of the existing federal high-cost
broadband deployment programs before engaging the Legislature to duplicate similar efforts at the
state level. Ultimately, if the Legislature permits the IUSF to support broadband, deployment
subsidies should only be awarded to unserved areas where there is no unsubsidized competitor.
IV. CONCLUSION
ICBA appreciates Staff recognizingthe Commission's jurisdiction to make comprehensive
changes to the IUSF is limited. Additionally, ICBA appreciates this opportunity to partner with
Staff and other stakeholders to provide the foregoing comments in pursuit of the Commission's
universal service goals.
Dated this ?f day ofAprll,2Ol7.
Respectfully submitted,
Rar
Ronald L. Williams
Williams Bradbury, P.C.
Attomeys for the Idaho Cable Broadband Association
t2 See CAFII - Price Cap Carriers - CAM 4.3, Accepted Price Cap CAF Il Offers of Model Based Support,
FCC (Aug. 28,2015).
t3 Id.
ra See CAF - A-CAM 2.3.1 - Report Version 8.0, FCC (Aug. 15, 2016) The following RLECs were offered
federal model based support: Albion Telephone Company; Blackfoot Telephone Cooperative; Cambridge
Telephone Company; Farmers Mutual Telephone Company; Horizon Communications; Mud Lake
Telephone Cooperative Association; Midvale Telephone Exchange, Martell Enterprises, Inc.; Martell
Enterprises; May, Bott et al.; Project Mutual Telephone Cooperative Association; TDS; and Western Elite
Incorporated Services.
1s See t4tireline Competition Bureau Releases List and Map of Eligible Census Blocks for the Connect
America Fund Phase II Auction (Auction 93), AU Docket No. l7-82, WC Docket No. 10-90, DA 17-1219,FCC (rel. Dec. 19, 2017) (List of eligible census blocks available at:
https ://www.fcc. gov/fi le sl cafZauctionpublishblockcsv).
4
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on tfris ff- day of Apri 1,2017 ,l caused to be served a true
and correct copy of the foregoing document upon the following individuals at the emails addresses
indicated below:
Alyson_anderson@msn. com
[e-mail]
i ames. farr6.centurvl ink. com
j ohn. [e-mail]
[e-mail]
krm@. givenspursley.com
rwi ssinsA.ctctele. com
[e-mail]
mestess@apublicpol icy.com
jeff.kuhns@.gmaiLcom
mamotzkus @ silverstar. net
bpatterson@ cityofammon. us
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
j ohn. [e-mail]
j harrison@ idahocities.org
s gri g [e-mail]
j on.barrett@irp. idaho. gov
2e Lu/lA,-
Ronald L. Williams
Williams Bradbury, P.C.
Attomeys for the Idaho Cable Broadband Association
5