The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20030626ITA Reply Comments.pdfConley Ward GIVENS PURSLEY LLP 277 NOlih 6th Street, Suite 200 O. Box 2720 Boise, ID 83701 (208) 388-1200 (208) 388-1300 (fax) F!LED I.-,~ ZOO3 JUH 26 PM 3: c.~ '- (":' 1\ lED!\L\..,LI'I' " "; ,; , ,. U,..Llt.. UTlLITllS COt4t1iSSION Attorneys for Idaho Telephone Association S:\MACS\CEW\IT A \Clear Talk\Reply Comments,doc IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF IAT COMMUNICATIONS , INc., d.a. NTCH- IDAHO, INC. OR CLEAR TALK FOR DESIGNATION AS AN ELIGIBLE TELECOMMUNICATIONS CARRIER BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION : CASE NO.: GNR-03- IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF : CASE NO.: GNR-03- NPCR, INC. DBANEXTELPARTNERS SEEKING DESIGNATION AS AN ELIGIBLE : REPLY COMMENTS OF IDAHO TELECOMMUNICATIONS CARRIER : TELEPHONE ASSOCIATION On behalf of its member companies, the Idaho Telephone Association ("ITA") files the following Reply Comments in accordance with Order No. 29273 in the above entitled case: Response to Clear Talk and Nextel Responses to ITA Protest.In its original Protest of the above-entitled Applications, the ITA pointed out that the Applicants statements that they currently "meet" all of the requirements for ETC designation are false because the Applicants do not serve the entirety of most of the rural companies' study areas , as required by 47 US.C. ~ 214(e).1 Both Nextel and Clear Talk object to this characterization on the grounds I Nextel 's Application states , " Nextel Partners meets all of the requirements for designation as an ETC in each of these Designated Areas." Nextel Application at 2 (emphasis added), Clear Talk's Application states , " Clear Talkmeetsall of the COlllinission s requirements for E.T.C. designation to serve southeast Idaho customers," Clear TalkApplication at 3 (emphasis added). RIT.PLV COMMENTS OF ITA - J that the FCC and a number of state commissions have held that the lack of ubiquitous service throughout an incumbent's service tenitory does not preclude an ETC designation. The ITA is well aware of the FCC's ruling on this issue, but it stands by its original statements that Applicants ' claims are not true. The fact is that the Applicants do not cunentlv meet the statutory ETC test as they claim because they do not cunently provide service throughout the rural companies ' study areas. Ubiquitous service throughout the incumbent rural telephone companies ' study area is a statutory requirement that cannot be modified or ignored by the FCC or state commissions. This statutory provision was enacted for the rural telephone companies ' protection and, at the very least, it requires a showing that the Applicants are fit willing, and able to meet this requirement before ETC status is granted. Whether the Applicants can meet this test remains to be seen, but at the moment it is clear that the Applicants have not as a factual matter, complied with the statutory requirements for ETC designation. Motion for a Stay. The ITA suppOlis the Motion of Citizens Telecommunications Company ofIdaho, Potlatch Telephone Company, Century/Tel ofIdaho, and CenturyTel of the Gem State for a stay of these proceedings lUltil the FCC issues its order in Docket No. 96-54. That docket amounts to a complete reevaluation of both the substantive and procedural requirements for participation in the Federal Universal Service Fund. At least one FCC Commissioner has already raised the issue of whether applicants such as Nextel and Clear Talk should receive ETC designations in rural telephone company study areas. See IT A Protest at 7. Under these circumstances, it is in the public interest for the Commission to stay these proceedings pending the FCC's decision. Doing so will spare both the Commission and the parties from a possible waste of time and resources in litigating applications that may ultimately prove to be baJTed as a matter of law. REPLY COMMENTS OF ITA - 2 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 26th day of June, 2003. !J~ RIT.J)V COMMENTS OF ITA - 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the day of June 2003 , I caused to be served a true andconect copy ofthe foregoing by the method indicated below, and addressed to the following: Jean Jewell Idaho Public Utilities Commission 472 W. Washington Street O. Box 83720 Boise, ID 83720-0074 - US. Mail - Fax -LByHand Molly O'Leary, Esq. Richardson & O'Leary, PLLC 99 E. State Street, Suite 200 Eagle, ID 83616 ~ U.S. Mail - Fax - By Hand Sean P. Fanell, Esq. IA T Communications, Inc. NTCH-Idaho Inc., dba Clear Talk 703 Pier Avenue, Suite B , PMB 813 Hennosa Beach, CA 90254 ~ U.S. Mail - Fax - By Hand Dean J. Miller, Esq. 420 West Bannock O. Box 2564-83701 Boise, ill 83702 ~ U.S. Mail - Fax - By Hand Philip R. Schenkenberg, Esq. 2200 First National Ban1e Building 332 Milmesota Street Saint Paul, MN 55101 ~ U.S. Mail - Fax - By Hand Morgan W. Richards Moffatt, Thomas, BaJTett, Rock & Fields 101 S. Capitol Blvd., loth Floor O. Box 829 Boise, ID 83701-0829 ~ U.S. Mail - Fax - By Hand REI'LV COMMENTS 01" ITA - 4 Lance A. Tade, Manager State Government Affairs Citizens Telecommunications Company of Idaho 4 Triad Center, Suite 200 Salt Lake City, UT 84180 US. Mail - Fax - By Hand Robert M. Nielsen 548 E Street O. Box 706 Rupert, ID 83350 US. Mail - Fax - By Hand Charles H. Creason, Jr. President and General Manager Project Mutual Telephone Cooperative Association, Inc. 507 G Street O. Box 366 Rupeli, ID 83350 ~ U.S. Mail Fax - By Hand REPLY COMMIT.NTS OF ITA - 5