PostHrgReplyBrief.doc

WELDON B. STUTZMAN
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
PO BOX 83720
BOISE, ID 83720-0074
Tele: (208) 334-
Idaho Bar No. 3283
FAX: [phone]

Street Address for Express Mail:

472 W. Washington
Boise, ID 83702-5983

Attorney for the Idaho Public Utilities Commission

BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

IN THE MATTER OF THE INVESTIGATION TO DETERMINE AN APPROPRIATE COST MODEL USING FORWARD-LOOKING ECONOMIC COSTS FOR CALCULATING THE COSTS OF BASIC TELECOMMUNICATION SERVICES IN IDAHO )
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NOS. GNR-T-97-22
GNR-T-00-2

STAFF’S POST-HEARING
REPLY BRIEF

IN THE MATTER OF THE INVESTIGATION TO ESTABLISH THE IDAHO HIGH COST FUND AS REQUIRED BY IDAHO CODE § 62-610A THROUGH F. )
)
)
)
)
)

Staff files this Reply Brief to respond to Qwest’s argument regarding the customer lines that should be supported by a new Idaho Universal Service Fund (USF). Staff believes USF support should be restricted to a single residential or business line, while Qwest argues that USF money should be available to support all customer lines subject to Idaho Code, Title 61 regulatory controls. Thus Qwest advocates using USF money, raised from surcharges paid by Idaho telephone customers, to support an unlimited number of residential telephone lines and the first five lines of a business customer.
Qwest contends as a matter of law that the Commission is required to provide USF support to unlimited multiple lines because Idaho Code “Section 62-610C requires basic local exchange service to be included in the definition of universal service.” Qwest Post-Hearing Brief, p. 16. Section 62-610C requires the Commission to review telecommunication services and “designate those services which should be made available to consumers by eligible telecommunications carriers to meet their obligation to provide universal service.” It is clear from the text that “basic local exchange service” is to be the recipient of USF support, but that the Commission may expand the universal service responsibility beyond support for “basic local exchange service.” That is consistent with the definition of “universal service” in Idaho Code § 62-610B(6), which is “basic local exchange service and other telecommunication services designated by the Commission as services which should be widely available to consumers in all regions of the state at just and reasonable rates.”
The term “basic local exchange service” is not defined in the USF statutes—Idaho Code §§ 62-610A through F—but is defined in a separate section at Idaho Code § 62-603(1). “Basic local exchange service” means “the provision of access lines to residential and small business customers with the associated transmission of two-way interactive switched voice communications within a local exchange calling area.” Idaho Code § 62-603C(1). The definition itself does not quantify lines for basic local exchange service simply because its purpose is to define a category for Commission regulatory authority in Chapter 6, Title 62. Its purpose is not to define “universal service.” Thus the Commission correctly concluded in a previous order that the definition of basic local exchange service “simply defines the Commission’s Title 61 jurisdiction as extending to the provision of two way interactive switched voice communication to residential and small business customers within a local exchange calling area.” See Order No. 24415 at 8. The Commission correctly recognized that the legislature was not attempting to prescribe new USF support by omitting any mention of line counts in a separate definition of basic local exchange service enacted in 1988.
The Commission may, of course, broaden the services to be supported by USF funds by expanding the definition of “universal service.” The legislature expressly authorized the Commission to broaden the definition to include “services designated by the Commission as services which should be widely available to consumers in all regions of the state at just and reasonable rates.” Idaho Code § 62-610B(6). However, broadening the scope of universal service is not to be done on a whim or the mere argument of Qwest. Rather, the Commission is required to “review the level of telecommunication services within the state on a periodic basis and designate those services which should be made available to consumers by eligible telecommunication carriers to meet their obligation to provide universal service.” Idaho Code § 62-610C. In other words, the Commission may expand “universal service” for the purpose of guaranteeing that a certain level of service is provided to customers as a basic necessity, not to expand the recovery by Qwest from the USF.
Before expanding the core services of universal service, the Commission is required to develop a record, specifically considering the extent to which extra services have “been subscribed to by a substantial majority of residential customers.” Idaho Code § 62-610C(2)(a) (italics added). The Commission must review whether the extra services “are being deployed in public telecommunications networks by telecommunications carriers,” and whether expanding “universal service” is consistent with the public interest, convenience and necessity. Idaho Code § 62-610C(2)(b) and (c).
There is no evidence in the record here that multiple lines are “subscribed to by a substantial majority of residential customers.” Nor has the Commission received evidence regarding the deployment of multiple residential lines in public telecommunications networks, or whether requiring telecommunication carriers to provide multiple lines as part of “universal service” is consistent with the public interest, convenience and necessity.
Nor is Qwest’s argument persuasive regarding the “policy question” of using the USF to support unlimited multiple lines. Qwest identifies the “primary objection” to supporting unlimited lines as fear “that this will increase the fund size.” Qwest Post-Hearing Brief, p. 17. Qwest argues that “[f]ears that fund size will increase if all Title 61 lines are included are groundless since any fund amount can be spread over any number of supported lines.” Qwest Post-Hearing Brief, p. 17. True. That is merely recognition that a fund amount that is fixed will not increase unless the Commission increases the fixed amount. It is not particularly insightful to note that a fixed amount can be divided by any number of lines.
Continually adjusting downward USF support per line as lines proliferate, however, is not consistent with the goals of universal service or the purpose of the new USF. The goal is to ensure that all customers, regardless of their location, “have comparable accessibility to basic telecommunication services at just and reasonable rates.” Idaho Code § 62-610A. Universal service support is to help in providing basic service to high cost customers. If USF support per line is continually lowered as unlimited multiple lines are added, the goal of the USF is eviscerated. Meaningful support for a new customer’s primary service will be gone as the support per line diminishes. That apparently is of little concern to Qwest, however, as it would be collecting its fixed amount from the USF.
Supporting only one line per address is consistent with the statutes, the stated purpose of the USF, and the public interest.
RESPECTFULLY submitted this 31st day of May 2001.

Deputy Attorney General

vld/B:GNR-T-97-22/00-2_replybrief_ws

STAFF’S POST-HEARING REPLY BRIEF 1