20031016Trampush Direct.pdf

RECEIVED 0FILED
LDS3 OCT' 5 "Mu 3: 5 2
!D PUBliCBEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSml1lrrlEs COHt1!SSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF
IAT COMMUNICATIONS, INc., d/b/a
NTCHIDAHO, INc. OR CLEAR TALK
FOR DESIGNATION AS AN ELIGIBLE
TELECOMMUNICATIONS CARRIER.
Case Nos. GNR-O3-
GNR-03-
IN THE MATTER OF THE
APPLICATION OF NPCR, INc., d/b/a
NEXTEL PARTNERS, SEEKING
DESIGNATION AS AN ELIGIBLE
TELECOMMUNICATIONS CARRIER.
DIRECT TESTIMONY
DANIEL L. TRAMPUSH
ON BEHALF OF
THE IDAHO TELEPHONE ASSOCIATION
AND
CITIZENS TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMPANY OF IDAHO
if"f'
.. ' ?. "- :: ', ,
~ IVlt'\d(\
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND BUSINESS ADDRESS.
My name is Daniel L. Trampush and my business address is 900 Washington
Street, Suite 700, Vancouver, Washington, 98660.
PLEASE SUMMARIZE YOUR CURRENT EMPLOYMENT AND
EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND.
My current position is Director - Telecommunications Consulting for the firm of
Moss Adams LLP. Moss Adams is an accounting and business advisory firm that
has been in business for 90 years. The firm has 20 practice offices throughout the
west coast and is the tenth largest public accounting firm in the United States.
I graduated from Central Washington University in 1970 with a Bachelor
of Arts degree in Business Administration.
PLEASE DESCRIBE YOUR PRIOR BUSINESS EXPERIENCE.
I have been actively involved in the telecommunications industry for the vast
majority of my thirty-three year professional career. Upon graduating from
college in 1970, I joined the firm of Ernst & Ernst (now Ernst & Young). I was
employed by the firm for twenty-seven years, the last seventeen of which I was a
partner. During my time at Ernst & Young, I worked on a variety of
telecommunications accounting and regulatory issues, some of which were
national in scope. I left the firm in 1997 and became Senior Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer of GST Telecommunications, Inc, a publicly traded
Competitive Local Exchange Carrier. My responsibilities at GST included
finance, accounting, and investor relations. My focus at Moss Adams is similar to
that at Ernst & Young. That is, I work in the firm s Telecom Niche practice
DIRECT TESTIMONY OF DANIEL L. TRAMPUSH - 2
IPUC Case Nos. GNR-O3-08 and GNR-O3-
S:\CLIENTS\I 233\1 70\Direct Testimony of Daniel L Trampush,DOC
providing consulting services to rural telecommunications carriers. I am also
active in the Organization for the Protection and Advancement of Small
Telephone Companies ("OP ASTCO") subcommittees on Universal Service and
access charges. Additionally, we are engaged to work in conjunction with
counsel for the Idaho Telephone Association on federal and state regulatory
proceedings. A copy of my biography is attached as Exhibit 301.
WHO ARE YOU TESTIFYING FOR IN THIS PROCEEDING?
I am appearing on behalf of the Idaho Telephone Association ("IT A") and
Citizens Telecommunications Company ofldaho ("Citizens"). The IT A is an
industry organization comprised of telecommunications carriers that serve
approximately 40 000 access lines in the rural areas ofldaho.1 All of the ITA'
members are "rural telephone companies" as defined in 47 US.C. 9 153(37).
Citizens is also a rural telephone company that provides telecommunications
service to approximately 21 000 access lines in 18 southern Idaho exchanges.
WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF YOUR TESTIMONY?
The purpose of my testimony is to analyze the Applications by NPCR, Inc
Nextel") and IAT Communications ("Clear Talk") for Eligible
Telecommunications Carrier ("ETC") designations in a number of rural telephone
companies' service territories. In doing so , I will comment on both the
Applications and the direct testimony submitted by the Applicants ' witnesses.
I ITA member companies include: Albion Telephone Company, Cambridge Telephone Company, Custer
Telephone Cooperative, Inc., Farmers Mutual Telephone Company, Filer Mutual Telephone Company,
Inland Telephone Company, Midvale Telephone Company, Mud Lake Telephone Cooperative Association
Project Mutual Telephone Cooperative Association, Direct Communications - Rockland, Rural Telephone
Company, Silver Star Telephone Company, Oregon-Idaho Utilities, and Fremont Telecom.
DIRECT TESTIMONY OF DANIEL L. TRAMPUSH - 3
IPUC Case Nos. GNR-O3-08 and GNR-O3-
S:\CLIENTS\I 233\1 70\Direct Testimony of Daniel L Trampush.DOC
PLEASE SUMMARIZE YOUR TESTIMONY.
My ultimate conclusion is that the Applicants have not made even a passable
attempt to meet their statutorily required burden of proof for ETC designations in
the rural telephone companies' service territories. In explaining this conclusion , I
will show that:
The Applicants repeatedly mischaracterize the plain meaning of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996 and the ultimate issues in this
proceeding.
The Applicants' own pleadings and testimony prove that for the
foreseeable future, they will not meet the minimum threshold requirement
for ETC designations in the affected incumbent local exchange carrier
ILEC") service territories.
Even if the Applicants could meet the threshold requirements for ETC
designations, their applications are not "in the public interest" and should
be denied.
PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW THE APPLICANTS MISCHARACTERIZE
THE 1996 ACT AND THE ISSUES IN THIS PROCEEDING?
The Applicants ' entire case is essentially built on the proposition that competition
is the "be all and end all" of the Act. According to the Applicants, the goal of
promoting competition trumps all other public interest policies embodied in the
Act. While I am not an attorney, I have spent the better part of my working life
dealing with telecommunications issues, including the 1996 Act, and I think I am
DIRECT TESTIMONY OF DANIEL L. TRAM PUSH - 4
IPUC Case Nos. GNR-O3-08 and GNR-O3-
S:\CLIENTS\1 233\1 70\Direct Testimony of Daniel L Trampush.DOC
competent to understand plain English. In my opinion the Applicants are grossly
mischaracterizing a complicated law that serves a number of purposes.
The Applicants mischaracterize the issues in this proceeding by insisting
that the ultimate issue in this case is whether there should be wireless competition
in the rural telephone companies' exchanges. This is not the issue at all. As I will
explain in detail later in my testimony, there is no shortage of wireless
competitors already operating in Idaho s rural telephone company service areas.
The real question in this case is whether the Applicants' competitive efforts in
these areas should be subsidized by payments from the federal Universal Service
Fund ("USF"
LET'S RETURN TO THE 1996 ACT. ARE YOU SUGGESTING THAT
THE ACT IS NOT PROCOMPETITION?
Not at all. The 1996 Act was obviously designed in part to promote, as the title of
Part II states, the "development of competitive markets" in the majority of the
nation s telecommunications markets. But the Act has a number of other equally
important purposes as well, not the least of which are the preservation and
enhancement of universal service and the protection of incumbent rural telephone
companies from unfair competition.
HOW DOES THE 1996 ACT DEFINE UNIVERSAL SERVICE?
Section 254(b) of the Act contains six major universal service principles:
Quality services should be available at just, reasonable, and affordable
rates.
DIRECT TESTIMONY OF DANIEL L. TRAM PUSH - 5
IPUC Case Nos. GNR-O3-08 and GNR-O3-
S:\CLIENTS\1233\170\Direct Testimony of Daniel L Trampush.DOC
Access to advanced services should be provided in all regions of the
nation.
Consumers in all regions of the nation should have access to services
(including advanced services) and rates that are reasonably comparable to
those in urban areas.
All telecommunications providers should make an equitable and
nondiscriminatory contribution to the preservation and advancement of
universal service.
There should be specific, predictable and sufficient Federal and State
mechanisms to preserve and advance universal service.
Schools and libraries should have access to advanced services.
In addition to the principles listed above, the FCC approved, based on a
Joint Board recommendation, an additional principle of "competitive neutrality
This principle requires that "universal service support mechanisms and rules
neither unfairly favor nor disfavor one technology over another.
It is worth noting that none of these universal service principles refer to
the promotion of competition, nor do they guarantee customers a right to multiple
competing universal service providers.
WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY "UNFAIR" COMPETITION?
The 1996 Act was a comprehensive reworking of the Communications Act of
1934. As such, it generated huge interest and massive lobbying efforts by
virtually every segment of the telecommunications industry, in addition to
consumer groups and other interested parties. After a long deliberative process
Report and Order in CC Docket No. 96-, issued May 8, 1997 at~47.
DIRECT TESTIMONY OF DANIEL L. TRAMPUSH - 6
IPUC Case Nos. GNR-O3-08 and GNR-O3-
S:\CLIENTS\I233\170\Direct Testimony of Daniel L Trampush.DOC
Congress ultimately reached the compromise embodied in the Act, in which most
of the industry groups got some of what they wanted, but not all.
The rural incumbent local exchange carriers ("ILECs ) also participated in
this legislative process, primarily through trade groups such as OP ASTCO. Many
of these companies , including many of those I am representing today, were then
(and remain now) subject to the traditional state public utility regulation process
that carries with it an obligation to serve as a carrier of last resort ("COLR"
within their service territories. This COLR obligation means that incumbent rural
telephone companies are not free to differentiate between profitable and
unprofitable customers. They are compelled to serve one and all at regulated rates
based on average costs.
Furthermore, because oftheir low population density service territories
the rural ILECs generally have high average service costs and often require
support from federal and state universal service funds ("USF") to keep rates
affordable and meet the universal service goals embodied in the federal Act and
state legislation. But within their generally high cost service areas, most rural
ILECs have some pockets of customers (primarily small towns, individual
businesses, and government offices) that comprise their lowest cost and most
profitable customers.
Thus, the rural ILECs argued that it would be unfair to allow umegulated
competitors to target only their most profitable customers, while leaving the
incumbents with the COLR obligation for the very highest cost customers. The
rural ILECs pointed out that allowing this type of "cherry picking' or "cream
DIRECT TESTIMONY OF DANIEL L. TRAMPUSH - 7
IPUC Case Nos. GNR-O3-08 and GNR-O3-
S:\CLlENTS\I233\170\Direct Testimony of Daniel L Trampush.DOC
skimming " competition would not only jeopardize the incumbents' financial
viability, but would also provide an undeserved windfall to competitive ETCs and
prove detrimental to universal service goals by causing increased rates for their
remaining high cost customers and increased demands on federal and state USPs.
DO THESE SAME CONSIDERATIONS APPLY TO RURAL
TELEPHONE COMPANIES IN IDAHO?
Yes, in spades. In preparation for an earlier proceeding, the ITA surveyed its
members to compile basic information about the members' service densities and
costs. Of the 15 study areas represented by ITA's 14 member companies, the ITA
collected information on 12 study areas. This response accounts for
approximately 98 percent of the ITA membership s total access lines.3 The ITA
data presented in these comments is based on this survey.
We found that, on average, the IT A companies have only 2 access lines
per square mile of service territory. This contrasts with the findings of the Rural
Task Force, which determined that, on average, rural carriers serve 19 lines per
square mile.4 Four of the ITA study areas have a line density per square mile of
less than 1 and three study areas have a density of between 1 and 2 lines per
square mile. On the other end of the spectrum, one member with a comparatively
small service territory has more than 100 access lines per square mile.
The lack of access line density and the necessity of providing ubiquitous
coverage in these rural areas translates into high costs. At the end of 2002, the
gross investment in telephone plant in service per access line for the IT A
3 Three member companies with combined access lines of approximately 1 000 were unable to respond to
the data request in the time allowed.4 Rural Task Force, White Paper 2 The Rural Difference January 2000, P. 33.
DIRECT TESTIMONY OF DANIEL L. TRAMPUSH - 8
IPUC Case Nos. GNR-O3-08 and GNR-O3-
S:\CLIENTS\1 233\1 70\Direct Testimony of Daniel L Trampush.DOC
members was approximately $5 400. Plant specific operating expenses were $445
per line for this same period, or $37 per line per month.
CAN YOU PROVIDE SIMILAR NUMBERS FOR CITIZENS' SERVICE
AREA?
Yes. The density of Citizens Idaho service area is also far below the national
average for rural telephone companies. Citizens averages 3.96 customers per
square mile. Ifwe blend the Citizens data with the ITA', average density would
equal 2.4 access lines per square mile.
Citizens also exhibits relatively high plant costs, with gross plant in
service per access line of $4 213, with plant specific operating expenses of $144
per year.
WHAT DO THESE DENSITY AND COST FIGURES TELL US ABOUT
COMPETITION IN RURAL TELEPHONE COMPANY SERVICE
AREAS?
With these types of average densities and costs, it is readily apparent that wireless
competitors who concentrate primarily on towns or businesses, without serving
the surrounding sparsely populated areas, have a potentially enormous
competitive advantage vis a vis the incumbent who must serve the entirety of its
study area.
DOES THIS POTENTIAL ADVANTAGE MEAN THAT WIRELESS
COMPETITION SHOULD BE PROHIBITED IN RURAL TELEPHONE
CO MP ANY SER VI CE AREAS?
DIRECT TESTIMONY OF DANIEL L. TRAMPUSH - 9
IPUC Case Nos. GNR-O3-08 and GNR-O3-
S:\CLlENTS\1233\170\Direct Testimony of Daniel L Trampush.DOC
No. In the end, the rural telephone companies did not get the full measure of
protection they requested when the Act was passed. Congress expressly
authorized wireless competition in rural telephone company service areas, and it
refused to prohibit wireless carriers from "cherry picking" the most attractive
customers or geographic portion of the incumbent rural telephone company
service area. But Congress did establish some important constraints on subsidized
competition by wireless carriers.
WHAT ARE THOSE CONSTRAINTS?
The first is that a rural telephone company competitor that seeks USF subsidies
must in fact provide ubiquitous service throughout the entirety of the incumbent's
service area. The second is that the state commission must explicitly find that a
competitor s eligible telecommunications carrier ("ETC") status, and entitlement
to USF support, is in the "public interest."
WHAT IS THE STATUTORY SOURCE OF THE FIRST CONSTRAINT
YOU HAVE JUST DESCRIBED?
The relevant provision of the Act is Section 214( e)(1), which provides that an
applicant for ETC status
shall, throughout the service area for which such designation is
received-
(A) offer the services that are supported by Federal
universal support mechanisms under section 254 . . . ; and
(B) advertise the availability of such services and the
charges therefore using media of general distribution.
47 US.c. 9214(e)(1). Section 214(e)(5) further provides:
In the case of an area served by a rural telephone company "service
area" means such company s "study area" unless and until the
Commission and the States after taking into account
DIRECT TESTIMONY OF DANIEL L. TRAMPUSH - 10
IPUC Case Nos. GNR-03-08 and GNR-03-
S:\CLIENTS\1233\170\Direct Testimony of Daniel L Trampush.DOC
recommendations of a Federal-State Joint Board instituted under
section 41 O( c), establish a different definition of service area for
such company.
WHAT IS THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THESE PROVISIONS?
Congress essentially offered wireless carriers a choice when they enter a rural
telephone company s service area. They are free to skim the cream ofthe
incumbent's customers, but if they do so they must forgo USF support.
Alternatively, the competitor can attempt to qualify for USF subsidies equivalent
to the incumbent's. If the competitor chooses the latter alternative it must , as a
minimum threshold requirement, match the incumbent's obligation to serve and
actively solicit customers throughout the entirety of a rural ILEC's territory. This
requirement is mandatory and non-discretionary, unless the Joint Board
recommends, and the FCC and states adopt, some lesser requirement.
HAS THE JOINT BOARD IN FACT RECOMMENDED A LESSER
STANDARD THAN THE UBIQUITOUS SERVICE REQUIREMENT?
No. In its Recommended Decision regarding the implementation of the universal
service principles of the 1996 Act, the Joint Board stated that:
We find no persuasive rationale in the record for adopting, at this
time, a service area that differs from a rural telephone company
present study area. We note that some commenters argue that
Congress presumptively retained study areas as the service area for
rural telephone companies in order to minimize "cream skimming
by potential competitors. Potential "cream skimming" is
minimized because competitors, as a condition of eligibility, must
provide services throughout the rural telephone company s study
area. Competitors would thus not be eligible for universal service
support if they sought to serve only the lowest cost portions of a
rural telephone company s study area.
Joint Board Recommended Decision (November 8, 1996), FCC 96J-3 at ~172.
DIRECT TESTIMONY OF DANIEL L. TRAMPUSH - 11
IPUC Case Nos. GNR-03-08 and GNR-03-
S:\CLlENTS\1233\170\Direct Testimony of DanieJ L Trampush.DOC
12 -
DOES A COMPETITIVE ETC HAVE TO OFFER SERVICE TO ALL
CUSTOMERS THROUGHOUT THE INCUMBENT RTC'S TERRITORY
BEFORE IT IS GRANTED ETC STATUS?
No. Clear Talk's witness, Mr. Ishihara correctly points out that the FCC has held
that a competitive ETC must be granted the same opportunity to build out its
facilities that the incumbent LEC received when it was first certificated to provide
service. But this is only half the story, and Mr. Ishihara conveniently omits the
conditions the FCC attached to this ruling. Following the passage cited by Mr.
Ishihara, the FCC went on to hold that a competitive ETC applicant must make a
reasonable demonstration to the state Commission of its "capability and
commitment" to provide service throughout the proposed ETC serving area. The
FCC stressed that this must be a meaningful demonstration:
We caution that a demonstration of the capability and commitment
to provide service must encompass something more than a vague
assertion of intent on the part of a carrier to provide service. The
carrier must reasonably demonstrate to the state Commission its
ability and willingness to provide service upon designation.
I assume the FCC's words were not chosen haphazardly. The FCC's analogy to
the showing required of the incumbent when it was originally certificated, and its
insistence that the applicant has the burden of proving "its ability and willingness
are significant. I interpret the FCC's ruling as requiring a showing by a
competitive ETC that it is "fit, willing, and able" to provide ubiquitous service on
reasonable terms and within a reasonable time.
WHAT TYPE OF SHOWING SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO MEET THIS
TEST?
Declaratory Ruling, released August 10 2000, FCC 00-248 at ~24.
DIRECT TESTIMONY OF DANIEL L. TRAMPUSH - 12
IPUC Case Nos. GNR-03-08 and GNR-03-
S:\CLlENTS\1 233\1 70\Direct Testimony of Daniel L Trampush.DOC
At a minimum, I believe the Commission should insist on convincing proof that
the applicant has a clear business plan and timetable for the required build out, the
financial capacity to carry out that plan, and (in the case of wireless carriers)
adequate spectrum to meet future customer growth requirements. Furthermore, in
the case of companies that have an operating history in other jurisdictions, they
should be required to show that they have followed through on their ETC
commitments in those jurisdictions.
CAN EITHER OF THE APPLICANTS MEET THIS THRESHOLD
STATUTORY REQUIREMENT?
No. But the reasons why differ between the two Applicants, so I will discuss each
separately.
LET'S START WITH CLEAR TALK. WHY DOES IT FAIL TO
QUALIFY FOR ETC STATUS UNDER THE UBIQUITOUS SERVICE
REQUIREMENT?
In his testimony on behalf of Clear Talk's Application in this case, Mr. Larry
Curry describes the scope of Clear Talk's Application as follows:
At this time, Clear Talk seeks designation as an ETC in certain
exchange areas and/or wire centers (as set forth in Exhibit A) that
fall within the boundaries of Clear Talk's FCC licenses.
Direct Testimony of Larry Curry, P. 12, L. 14-16.
I have reproduced Mr. Curry s Exhibit A7 as ~y Exhibit No. 302. As the
Exhibit shows, Clear Talk is requesting an ETC designation in the service areas of
three rural telephone companies-Citizens, Fremont Telecom ("Fremont"), and
7 Mr. Curry s Exhibit A is actually labeled "Exhibit 1"
DIRECT TESTIMONY OF DANIEL L. TRAM PUSH - 13
IPUC Case Nos. GNR-03-08 and GNR-03-
S:\CLIENTS\I 233\1 70\Direct Testimony of Daniel L. Trampush.DOC
Project Mutual Telephone Cooperative ("Project Mutual,,8 But Clear Talk'
request is not coterminous with the rural telephone companies ' study areas in any
of these cases. In the case of Citizens , Clear Talk is requesting designation in
Aberdeen only. This is only one of Citizens ' 18 exchanges in its study area. In
Fremont's case, Clear Talk requests designation in Fremont's Ashton , St.
Anthony, and Chester wire centers, thus omitting Fremont's Island Park
exchange. Finally, with regard to Project Mutual, Clear Talk omits the Oakley
exchange from its request.
In short, Clear Talk is asking the Commission to do something that is
absolutely prohibited by law by requesting an ETC designation for less than the
entirety of the affected rural telephone company service areas. To make matters
worse, Clear Talk acknowledges that it cannot even serve the entirety of all the
exchanges listed in Exhibit A, and it is therefore requesting an ETC designation
for "any partial wirecenters." Since these partial wirecenters are not identified
Clear Talk's Application is not only contrary to law, but it leaves the Commission
in the extraordinary position of considering a request for an ETC designation
whose geographic boundaries are unknown.
CAN CLEAR TALK SOMEHOW CURE THIS PROBLEM BY LATER
EXPANDING ITS OWN SERVICE AREA?
No. I read Mr. Clear Talk's testimony as saying that its requested ETC area is
coterminous with its FCC license. If this is so, it presumably does not have either
legal authority or spectrum capacity to expand beyond the requested geographic
area.
8 Clear Talk has apparently abandoned its request in its Petition to include A TC and Fremont Telecom.
DIRECT TESTIMONY OF DANIEL L. TRAMPUSH - 14
IPUC Case Nos. GNR-03-08 and GNR-03-
S:\CLIENTS\ I 233\170\Direct Testimony of Daniel L Trampush. DOC
DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER CONCERNS ABOUT CLEAR TALK'
ABILITY TO MEET ITS ETC OBLIGATIONS?
Yes. As of the date this testimony is being prepared, Clear Talk still has not
provided the IT A with the promised response to its request for basic financial
information, including a balance sheet and income statement. This makes me
very suspicious about its financial ability to perform even if it had the legal ability
to do so. That suspicion is compounded by the knowledge that Leap Wireless
which owns 30% of Clear Talk is now in bankruptcy.
PLEASE SUMMARIZE YOUR FINDINGS WITH REGARD TO CLEAR
TALK'S ABILITY TO MEET WHAT YOU HAVE CHARACTERIZED AS
THE THRESHOLD REQUIREMENT FOR ETC DESIGNATION?
Clear Talk does not even make a defensible attempt to meet the threshold legal
requirement. It simply ignores the requirement that it must serve the whole of the
incumbent rural telephone companies' service areas , and instead requests that the
Commission grant it ETC status for its own service territory. The Commission
simply has no legal authority to grant this request.
LET'S TURN OUR ATTENTION TO NEXTEL. DOES NEXTEL MEET
THE THRESHOLD REQUIREMENT FOR ETC STATUS?
Nextel's case is both more complicated and more interesting than Clear Talk'
but in the end my conclusions are the same. Nextel is a large, profitable publicly
traded company, and it therefore probably has the financial capability to provide
ubiquitous service if it chooses to do so. The problem is with Nextel's
9 Clear Talk's financial information reached ITA's counsel late in the afternoon of October 14 , too late for
analysis in ITA's testimony due the following day.
DIRECT TESTIMONY OF DANIEL L. TRAM PUSH - 15
IPUC Case Nos. GNR-03-08 and GNR-03-
S:\CLlENTS\1233\170\Direct Testimony of Daniel L Trampush.DOC
willingness" to meet its obligations under the Act. Ordinarily, proof about a
party s intentions is difficult to establish. But in this case there is strong evidence
that, despite the thin promises to the contrary in its testimony, Nextel has no
intention of providing ubiquitous universal service throughout the rural telephone
company service areas for which its seeks an ETC designation.
BEFORE WE FOLLOW UP ON THE ALLEGATION CONTAINED IN
THE LAST SENTENCE IN YOUR PREVIOUS ANSWER, WOULD YOU
PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY THE NEXTEL CASE MORE COMPLICATED
THAN CLEAR TALK'
In the first place, Nextel has filed on more rural telephone company service areas.
Like Clear Talk, it has filed on a portion of Citizens' service area and all of
Project Mutual's service area. But in addition it has also filed on the service areas
of Albion Telephone Company ("Albion ), Filer Mutual Telephone Cooperative
Filer Mutual"), Farmers Mutual Telephone Cooperative ("Farmers Mutual"
and Mud Lake Telephone Cooperative ("Mud Lake ). Each of these filings
presents slightly different circumstances.
PLEASE START BY DESCRIBING THE SITUATION WITH RESPECT
TO THE APPLICATION CONCERNING CITIZENS' SERVICE AREA.
Mr. Lance Tade will describe the filing in Citizens ' service area in some detail
and I will not attempt to duplicate his description here. In brief, Nextel has filed
on approximately two-thirds of Citizens ' Idaho exchanges. Not surprisingly,
these are generally Citizens' most heavily populated and lowest cost exchanges.
HOW DOES NEXTEL JUSTIFY THIS TARGETING?
DIRECT TESTIMONY OF DANIEL L. TRAMPUSH - 16
IPUC Case Nos. GNR-03-08 and GNR-03-
S:\CLIENTS\1233\170\Direct Testimony of Daniel L. Trampush.DOC
Nextel really offers no justification at all, other than the fact that this is the
customer base it would like to serve, and the tired refrain that this will somehow
promote competition. Nextel is simply asking the Commission to disaggregate
Citizens' service area so it can receive USF support but avoid serving territory it
obviously views as unprofitable. This area it will happily leave to Citizens.
IS THIS REQUEST CONSISTENT WITH THE STATUTORY
MANDATES YOU DESCRIBED ABOVE?
No. In short, this is precisely the type of preferential targeting of a select portion
of a rural telephone company s customers that the threshold requirement is
designed to prevent. Allowing this sort of phony competition would be a breach
of faith with the rural telephone companies who justifiably believed that
subsidization of this type of cherry picking would never be allowed under the Act.
PLEASE DESCRIBE THE SITUATION REGARDING THE OTHER
RTCS AFFECTED BY NEXTEL'S APPLICATION.
The circumstances vary. In the case of Farmers Mutual and Project Mutual
Nextel arguably has the ability to provide service in all, or virtually all, of the
incumbents' service area , if one accepts Nextel's propagation map at face value.
The same cannot be said of the Albion, Filer and Mud Lake service territories. In
those companies ' areas , Nextel would have to build out to meet its ubiquitous
service requirement.
HAS NEXTEL PROVIDED ANYTHING MORE THAN "A V AGUE
ASSERTION OF INTENT" REGARDING THIS BUILD OUT
REQUIREMENT?
DIRECT TESTIMONY OF DANIEL L. TRAM PUSH - 17
IPUC Case Nos. GNR-03-08 and GNR-03-
S:\CLlENTS\1 233\1 70\Direct Testimony of Daniel L Trampush.DOC
On the contrary, it has admitted it has no specific plans to do so. The ITA'
Discovery Request No. 24 asked Nextel to
, "
Please provide details ofNextel's
specific plans to extend its network in each of the requested Designated Areas.
To which Nextel replied
, "
Nextel Partners will meet its obligation as an ETC to
expand its network, over time, to meet reasonable requests for service. Nextel
offers no specific plans for consideration in this case " (Emphasis added.
Similarly, ITA Request No. 28 asked Nextel to
, "
Please describe the
analysis that will be undertaken when a customer requests service in an area not
currently served by Nextel, but within the requested Designated Area." Nextel
responded by stating that
, "
Nextel Partners cannot state at this time what that
analysis would be.
HOW DO YOU INTERPRET THESE RESPONSES?
I am convinced Nextel is not serious about meeting its build out obligation.
IS THIS WHY YOU PREVIOUSLY EXPRESSED DOUBTS ABOUT
NEXTEL'S WILLINGNESS TO PROVIDE UBIQUITOUS UNIVERSAL
SERVICE THROUGHOUT THE INCUMBENT RTCS' EXCHANGES?
It is one reason, but not the major one. My primary reason for concluding that
Nextel is not willing to provide ubiquitous service is that its own business
objectives concede as much. Nextel's business strategy is to target the very
highest margin customers while largely ignoring the general populace of potential
subscribers. This strategy is readily documented in the company s public filings
and is well known to the investment community. As Value Line recently stated
The Company is best known for serving businesses and government entities
DIRECT TESTIMONY OF DANIEL L. TRAMPUSH - 18
IPUC Case Nos. GNR-03-08 and GNR-03-
S:\CLlENTS\1233\170\Direct Testimony of Daniel L. Trampush.DOC
which account for over 70% of the subscriber base." (A copy of the Value Line
article is attached as Exhibit No. 303.
Morningstar, an equally well-respected independent stock research firm
summarized the company s strategy in somewhat more colorful terms:
Unlike rivals obsessed with subscriber growth, Nextel doesn
wave a cell phone at every Tom, Dick, and Harry. Instead, it
skims the cream of the crop; lucrative business customers who tend
to be heavy cell phone users and who are more concerned with
quality and features than price.
(Emphasis added.) The full text of the Morningstar article is attached as Exhibit
No. 304.
DO YOU HAVE ANY EVIDENCE THAT NEXTEL IS IN FACT
PURSUING THIS CREAM SKIMMING STRATEGY IN IDAHO?
Yes. In the IT A survey of its member companies that I previously described in
this testimony, we asked the companies to break their access lines down into four
categories: residential, single line businesses, multi line businesses, and special
access. In the course of preparing this testimony, I requested similar information
from Citizens. The results appear in the following table:
ITA
Residential
Business - Single-Line
Business - Multi-Line
Special Access
Total Access Lines
CTC-Idaho
Residential
Business - Single-Line
Business - Multi-Line
Special Access
Total Access Lines
2000
582
715
745
576
618
2000
845
557
978
380
2001
30,472
040
631
604
747
2001
908
280
138
326
DIRECT TESTIMONY OF DANIEL L. TRAMPUSH - 19
IPUC Case Nos. GNR-03-08 and GNR-03-
S:\CLIENTS\1233\170\Direct Testimony of Daniel L Trampush.DOC
2002
373
537
991
591
39,492
2002
752
341
083
176
% of Total
76.
11.
10.
100.
% of Total
79.
15.
100.
IT A + CTC-Idaho
Residential
Business - Single-Line
Business - Multi-Line
Special Access
Total Access Lines
2000
47,427
272
723
576
998
2001
380
320
769
604
073
2002
125
878
074
591
668
% of Total
77.
13.
8.4%
100.
As you can see, residential customers comprised approximately 79% of the rural
telephone companies' access lines. Single line businesses and multi line
businesses comprised 13% and 5%, respectively.
Comparing these figures with Nextel's line counts is very instructive. In
its Discovery Request No., the ITA asked Nextel for its line counts in each of
affected incumbents ' service territories. Two of the service areas had so few
customers that the results are perhaps not statistically significant. In the
remaining service areas, Nextel broke out its line counts as follows:
Citizens
Project Mutual
Filer Mutual
Mud Lake
Multi-line Business
390
105
Single-line Business
& Residential
239
111
WHAT CONCLUSIONS DO YOU DRAW FROM THIS INFORMATION?
My first conclusion is that Nextel is following, and presumably will continue to
follow, its cream skimming strategy in Idaho. In the two areas where it has the
highest penetration levels, multi-line business customers account for more than
half of its total access lines, and in all the rural telephone companies' territories
Nextel's percentage of business lines is several times the rural incumbent
averages. In fact, Nextel doesn t even have a separate category for residential
customers. They are lumped in with single-line businesses, presumably because
DIRECT TESTIMONY OF DANIEL L. TRAMPUSH - 20
IPUC Case Nos. GNR-03-08 and GNR-03-
S:\CLIENTS\1233\170\Direct Testimony of Daniel L. Trampush.DOC
the number of residential customers is not large enough (or of sufficient interest to
the company) to justify tracking them separately.
My further conclusion is that the service Nextel offers has nothing
whatsoever to do with universal service as that term is commonly understood.
fact, it is its antithesis. Nextel is engaged in exactly the type of cream skimming
that threatens universal service, rather than strengthening it. There is no earthly
reason to subsidize this service with universal service funds.
PLEASE SUMMARIZE THIS PORTION OF YOU TESTIMONY.
Neither Clear Talk nor Nextel meet the fundamental threshold test for ETC
eligibility. Clear Talk can serve the entirety of the rural telephone companies
service areas, and Nextel won In fact, both simply ignore the statutory
requirement to do so, and in effect ask the Commission to redefine their ETC
service areas as the areas they have chosen to serve, without reference to the
incumbents ' service areas. This is contrary to both the spirit and the letter of the
law, and their applications must therefore be rejected.
ASSUME FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT THAT THE COMMISSION
SOMEHOW FINDS THAT THE THRESHOLD REQUIREMENT HAS
BEEN MET. SHOULD THE APPLICATIONS THEN BE GRANTED?
No. The ubiquitous service requirement is only the first of two tests that must be
satisfied before a competitor can be granted ETC status in a rural telephone
company s service area.
WHAT IS THE SECOND TEST?
Section 214(e)(2) states:
DIRECT TESTIMONY OF DANIEL L. TRAM PUSH - 21
IPUC Case Nos. GNR-03-08 and GNR-03-
S:\CLlENTS\1 233\1 70\Direct Testimony of Daniel L. Trampush.DOC
(TJhe 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 eligible
telecommunications carrier. . . Before designating an additional
eligible telecommunications carrier for an area served by a rural
telephone company, the State commission shall find that the
designation is in the public interest.
(Emphasis added). Again, this statutory requirement is clearly mandatory and
non-discretionary.
HOW DO THE APPLICANTS PROPOSE TO MEET THIS PUBLIC
INTEREST TEST?
The Applicants ' witnesses uniformly argue that the theoretical or presumed
benefits of their competition with the incumbent wireline carriers is sufficient to
satisfy the public interest test. Representative samples of this line of argument
include the following:
Designating Clear Talk as an ETC in Idaho will bring competition
to rural, high cost areas, and competition is in the public interest. .
. The failure to designate Clear Talk as an ETC would deprive
consumers of the benefits of competition, including increased
choices, higher quality service, and lower rates. Glenn Ishihara, P.
, L-6- 7 17-19.
Consistent with the Act, the "public interest" is served where
designating a competitive ETC will benefit consumers in rural
areas of the state. The Commission should make this
determination from the presumption that competition benefits
consumers, and that citizens throughout the state are entitled to the
benefits of competitive universal service. Scott Peabody, P. 23, L.
12-17.
Put directly, the purpose of this proceeding is not as many rural
LECs argue, to answer the question "Is the introduction of
competition for basic telecommunications services in rural areas in
the public interest?" That question has been answered and the
policy direction has been set on a federal level by both Congress
and the FCc. Don Wood, P. 4, L. 11-15.
DIRECT TESTIMONY OF DANIEL L. TRAM PUSH - 22
IPUC Case Nos. GNR-03-08 and GNR-03-
S:\CLlENTS\1 233\1 70\Direct Testimony of Daniel L. Trampush.DOC
DO YOU AGREE WITH THESE ARGUMENTS?
No. They would be correct if were considering a non-rural ILEC's service area.
But they are manifestly wrong as a statement of law and Congressional intent
when applied to a rural telephone company s territory. If the presumptive
benefits of competition were sufficient to satisfy the public interest test, the public
interest test would be a non sequiter because Congress would have had no reason
to include it in the law. It would have made multiple ETC designations
mandatory, as it did in RBOC service areas, on the grounds that competition is
always in the public interest.
But that is not what Congress did. Instead it made multiple ETC
designations permissive in rural telephone company service areas and further
provided that these designations must first be determined to be "in the public
interest." Thus, the only logical reading of the statute is that a company seeking
ETC status in a rural telephone company service area must show some public
interest benefit beyond the presumptive benefits of competition.
HAVE THE APPLICANTS IN FACT INTRODUCED EVIDENCE OF
ANYTHING OTHER THAN THE PRESUMED BENEFITS OF
COMPETITION.
, and they effectively admit as much in their testimony and discovery
responses.
10 "It appears that, in finding that CETCs should be designated in rural ILECs' territories , the Commission
and some states have found the mere encouragement of competition sufficient under the law to meet the
public interest test If that were sufficient, Congress would not have needed to establish the public interest
test; the Commission and the states would simply have been directed to authorize multiple ETCs in all
ILECs' territories, rural or not" NASUCA Comments, P. 9, CC Docket No. 96-45.
DIRECT TESTIMONY OF DANIEL L. TRAMPUSH - 23
IPUC Case Nos. GNR-03-08 and GNR-03-
S:\CLlENTS\1 233\1 70\Direct Testimony of Daniel L. Trampush.DOC
BUT HAVEN'T SOME STATES ACCEPTED THE ARGUMENT THE
APPLICANTS ARE ADVANCING IN THIS CASE?
Many industry observers, consumer advocates and even FCC Commissioners
apparently believe that to be the case. The National Association of State Utility
Consumer Advocates ("NASUCA") speculates that this is occurring because:
Under current rules, states have something of a conflict of interest.
That is, there may be a bias toward granting of ETC status because
when new ETCs are created, more federal dollars flow into the
state. Conversely, there is a disincentive for states to ensure that
the public interest is fulfilled on a national basis because the
benefit of additional federal funds may outweigh a state regulators
(sic) concerns about the sustainability of the federal program. I I
DO YOU AGREE WITH THE NASUCA'S SUGGESTION?
Without reviewing the records in other states, I cannot say. But if this in fact is
occurring, I would observe that it is very shortsighted on the state commissions
part. As Milton Friedman famously observed
, '
There is no such thing as a free
lunch." The collective effect of the individual states' actions is to needlessly
drive up the cost of universal service and the funds that must be collected from
consumers. In addition, I would submit that the misapplication ofthe public
interest standard can, and probably will, have adverse unintended consequences.
IF THE PROMOTION OF COMPETITION ALONE IS NOT SUFFICIENT
TO SATISFY THE PUBLIC INTEREST, HOW SHOULD THE
COMMISSION MAKE SUCH A DETERMINATION?
The Act itself does not define the term. I would observe, however, that a
legislative direction to an administrative agency to determine whether an action is
in the "public interest" generally requires the agency to engage in a weighing of
II NASUCA Comments
, pp.
, CC Docket No. 96-
DIRECT TESTIMONY OF DANIEL L. TRAMPUSH - 24
IPUC Case Nos. GNR-03-08 and GNR-03-
S:\CLIENTS\I 233\1 70\Direct Testimony of Daniel L. Trampush.DOC
all the relevant factors or considerations. That is the course I recommend in this
case.
HOW SHOULD THE COMMISSION CONDUCT THIS WEIGHING
PROCESS?
The ultimate question here is whether the federal USF should be employed to
subsidize the Applicants' competitive efforts in the rural telephone companies
service areas. I suggest, therefore, that we must first consider what we are trying
to accomplish with USF payments, what is the likelihood that we will achieve our
goals, and whether the expected results justify the costs. In FCC Commissioner
Adelstein s words, regulators should consider the following issues in
administering the public interest test:
Whether granting ETC status to a competitor will bring benefits to
a community that it does not already have and what effect it will
have on the overall size of the fund, and thus on consumers' bills.
, a threshold question is, does the benefit to consumers outweigh
the ultimate burden on consumers.
HOW SHOULD THE PROMOTION OF COMPETITION FIT INTO THIS
ANALYSIS?
The Applicants argue that competing universal service providers will force all
competitors to provide more efficient and more attractive service, thus
presumably lowering the costs and improving the value of service for everyone.
Further, to quote Mr. Ishihara, they argue that the failure to subsidize the
Applicants ' competitive efforts "would deprive consumers ofthe benefits of
competition. . . ." Ishihara Direct, P. 23 , L. 18.
12 Remarks of Commissioner Johnathan S. Adelstein before the National Association of Regulatory Utility
Commissioners on February 25, 2003, quoted in NTCA Reply Comments, P., CC Docket No. 96-45.
DIRECT TESTIMONY OF DANIEL L. TRAMPUSH - 25
IPUC Case Nos. GNR-03-08 and GNR-03-
S:\CLlENTS\1 233\1 70\Direct Testimony of Daniel L Trampush.DOC
So the first question is whether Mr. Ishihara is correct. Is a subsidy
necessary to bring rural customers the competitive benefits of wireless
competition?
AND THE ANSWER IS?
The evidence simply doesn t support Mr. Ishihara s assertion. The FCC's most
recent CMRS Competition report found that 94 percent of the total United States
population lives in counties with three or more mobile telephone service
operators.13 ITA members' customers also generally have a wide choice of
wireless providers. In the survey I discussed earlier, we found an average of 5
wireless carriers serving the ITA members' study areas. Four study areas reported
between 1 to 3 wireless providers, four additional study areas stated that there
were 4 to 6 providers, and the remaining four study areas identified between 7 to
10 wireless carrier alternatives. In many cases, these CMRS providers have been
offering mobile service for 5 to 10 years. Even more significantly, these carriers
have been offering their services since inception without high-cost support. This
is impossible to square with the Applicants' contention that , without USF
subsidies, there will be no wireless competition in the rural telephone companies
servIce areas.
BUT ISN'T IT POSSIBLE THAT USF SUBSIDIES WILL INCREASE
WIRELESS CARRIER'S COMPETITIVE EFFORTS?
Perhaps, if one believes that wireless carriers and incumbent LECs are direct
competitors. But the evidence for this proposition is not persuasive. As the table
on page 19 of my testimony indicates, access line counts for both Citizens and the
13 Notice at para. 12.
DIRECT TESTIMONY OF DANIEL L. TRAMPUSH - 26
IPUC Case Nos. GNR-03-08 and GNR-03-
S:\CLlENTS\1233\170\Direct Testimony of Daniel L Trampush.DOC
ITA members have been essentially flat during the last three years. This is not
surprising given the economy in this area of the country, with continuing small
business closures, and population declines.
But if the many wireless carriers in the rural telephone companies service
areas were in fact competing with the incumbent to provide universal service, we
would expect to see significant line count losses by the incumbents. This simply
hasn t happened. While discussions with IT A members indicate there is
anecdotal evidence that a few customers may have "cut the cord", the companies
are not experiencing major access line losses to CMRS providers.
The story is different when examining interstate access minutes of use. For
the combined study areas, interstate access minutes of use increased three percent
from 2000 to 2001 , and were essentially flat from 2001 to 2002. However, when
the data is disaggregated to the study area level, the majority 0 fiT A members
experienced interstate access usage declines in the four percent to eight percent
range.
WHAT CONCLUSIONS DO YOU DRAW FROM THIS EVIDENCE?
Based on the foregoing rural Idaho specific information, I believe that wireless
service is complementary to wire line service with respect to basic local service
but that customers are substituting wireless service for their long distance calling.
This understandably reflects the regional and national "buckets of minutes , free
night and weekend calling, and other features being offered by the CMRS
providers. Dr. William R. Gillis in recent testimony before the Senate
Subcommittee supports this view:
DIRECT TESTIMONY OF DANIEL L. TRAMPUSH - 27
IPUC Case Nos. GNR-03-08 and GNR-03-
S:\CLIENTS\1233\! 70\Direct Testimony of Daniel L. Trampush,DOC
. . .I would observe mobile wireless and traditional
telecommunications are not for the most part competing services
and have been inappropriately characterized as such. With the
exception of those cases where mobile wireless has resulted in the
ability of customers to eliminate their traditional
telecommunications connections, we are discussing
complementary services, both desired by consumers for different
reasons
As the data indicates, rural Idaho customers are not substituting their
wire line phones for wireless phones to any major extent. Rather, as observed by
Dr. Gillis, they value both services for different reasons. With respect to wireline
service, customers place importance on reliability, quality of service, public
safety, and the ability to receive service regardless of where they live in the
ILEC's service territory. Wireless service offers the customer a different value
proposition; namely mobility, nationwide calling, different ringing tones, and
differentiated phones, among other factors.
This situation raises a couple of compelling public interest questions.
First, how can the presumed benefits of competition occur when there appears to
be little direct wireless competition with the incumbents for the provision of
universal service? Second, does it make sense to devote scarce federal universal
service funds to promote wireless competition in rural areas when that
competition is largely directed against interexchange carriers who do not qualify
for similar subsidies?
BUT EVEN IF WIRELESS USF SUPPORT IS NOT NECESSARY TO
PROMOTE USF GOALS IN RURAL AREAS, ISN'T IT APPROPRIATE
14 Testimony of Dr. William R. Gillis, Director, Center to the Bridge to the Digital Divide, Washington
State University, before the Communications Subcommittee ofthe Senate Committee on Commerce
Science, and Transportation, April 2, 2003.
DIRECT TESTIMONY OF DANIEL L. TRAMPUSH - 28
IPUC Case Nos. GNR-03-08 and GNR-03-
S:\CLIENTS\1233\170\Direct Testimony of Daniel L Trampush.DOC
TO ENABLE WIRELESS PROVIDERS TO "COMPETE EQUIT ABLY
WITH THE INCUMBENT ETCS"
I take issue with this statement for a number of reasons. First, as I pointed out
earlier, the goal of the federal USF is to promote universal service rather than
competition. Moreover, wireless carriers have a number of competitive
advantages over rural telephone companies. These include the fact that wireless
carrIers:
Are generally umegulated entities that provide highly variable
service quality, varying levels of customer service, unilaterally
determined billing and collection practices, unilaterally determined
rates and have no requirement to provide facilities in specific
areas.
In addition, wireless companies have no Carrier of Last Resort
Obligations, do not provide equal access to long distance services as do the
incumbents, and any USF funding they receive is based on the incumbent's costs
that have no relation to the wireless carrier s specific costs of providing service.
Given these advantages, there is no reason to believe wireless carriers
need subsidies to level the competitive playing field. It is at least equally likely
that competitive ETC designations for wireless carriers
, "
that arguably level the
playing field, in fact, provide windfalls to carriers with lower costs and lesser
regulatory burdens.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER MATTERS THE COMMISSION SHOULD
CONSIDER IN DETERMINING THE PUBLIC INTEREST?
15 NASUCA Comments, P. 8, CC Docket No. 96-45.
16 NTCA Reply Comments, P. 2, CC Docket No. 96-45.
DIRECT TESTIMONY OF DANIEL L. TRAMPUSH - 29
IPUC Case Nos. GNR-03-08 and GNR-03-
S:\CLIENTS\I 233\1 70\Direct Testimony of Daniel L. Trampush.DOC
Yes. There is always the question of costs. The many comments before the
Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, CC Docket No. 96-, have been
nearly unanimous in citing an alarming rise in federal USF payments to
competitive ETCs. According to the Universal Service Administrative Company,
universal service payments to competitive ETCs in the most recent quarter have
increased 71 % over the quarterly payments of a year ago, and they now amount to
$62.7 million per quarter.
This would perhaps be tolerable if we had a high degree of assurance that
these funds are in fact promoting universal service goals. But as this testimony
points out, the evidence suggests that subsidizing wireless ETCs does little or
nothing for universal service. What it does promote, as both investment analysts
and consumer groups have pointed out, is a growing contribution to the wireless
industry s bottom line.
WHAT IS YOUR BASIS FOR THAT STATEMENT?
In the first place, it is a simple mathematical fact that, in any service area where
the wireless ETC's costs are less than the incumbent ILEC', the wireless carrier
will recover a windfall profit in excess of its cost of service because its support
payments are based, not on the amount it needs for universal service support, but
on the payments necessary to meet the incumbent's needs.
Moreover, those whose business it is to analyze the industry s economics
have reached the same conclusion. For instance, a recent Solomon Smith Barney
17 OPASTCO Reply Comments, P. 2, CC Docket No. 96-45.
DIRECT TESTIMONY OF DANIEL L. TRAMPUSH - 30
IPUC Case Nos. GNR-03-08 and GNR-03-
S:\CLlENTS\1233\170\Direct Testimony of Daniel L. Trampush.DOC
report concluded that Western Wireless s "USF subsidy represents an incremental
". . ,,
revenue source were t e Incrementa revenue IS a most a margIn.
DO THESE CONSIDERATIONS HAVE RAMIFICATIONS BEYOND
THE PRESENT CASE?
Yes. If the Commission grants these insupportable Applications, it is difficult for
me to imagine any grounds that will suffice to deny subsequent applications. In
that event, we can assume that virtually all of the wireless carriers operating in
Idaho will apply for, and be granted, ETC status and federal USF support.
Furthermore, I would expect that these carriers will ultimately seek funding from
the state universal service fund as well.
The result will be the creation of a whole new industry subset, founded not
on competitive business principles, but rather on the desire to maximize
regulatory subsidies that have little or nothing to do with universal service. The
ultimate irony is that this will distort, rather than advance, competition, and place
legitimate universal service funding at risk.
PLEASE SUMMARIZE YOUR TESTIMONY.
The facts in this case indicate that the Applicants cannot, and will not, meet the
minimum threshold statutory requirement for ETC status because they will not be
providing service throughout the entirety of the incumbent rural telephone
companies ' service areas. Furthermore, even if the Applicants met the threshold
test, their Applications are not in the public interest and should be denied.
DOES THIS CONCLUDE YOUR TESTIMONY?
Yes.
18 Cited in NTCA Reply Comments, P. 7, CC Docket No. 96-45.
DIRECT TESTIMONY OF DANIEL L. TRAMPUSH - 31
IPUC Case Nos. GNR-03-08 and GNR-03-
S:\CLIENTS\1233\170\Direct Testimony of Daniel L Trampush.DOC
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this day of October 2003 , I caused to be
served a true and correct copy of the foregoing document 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
J US. Mail
( JJ Hand Delivered
( J Overnight Mail
J Facsimile
Molly O'Leary
RICHARDSON & O'LEARY
99 E. State Street, Ste. 200
Eagle, ID 83616
( ./I US. Mail
( J Hand Delivered
J Overnight Mail
J Facsimile
Sean P. Farrell
IA T Communications, Inc.
NTCH-Idaho Inc., d/b/a Clear Talk
703 Pier Avenue, Suite B
PMB 813
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
( Jj US. Mail
( J Hand Delivered
J Overnight Mail
J Facsimile
Dean 1. Miller
MCDEVITT & MILLER
420 W. Bannock Street
O. Box 2564
Boise, ID 83701-2564
( ./J U.S. Mail
J Hand Delivered
J Overnight Mail
J Facsimile
Philip R. Schenkenberg
2200 First National Bank Building
332 Minnesota Street
Saint Paul, MN 55101
( IJ US. Mail
( J Hand Delivered
J Overnight Mail
( J Facsimile
Morgan W. Richards
Moffatt, Thomas, Barrett, Rock & Fields
101 S. Capitol Blvd., 10th Floor
O. Box 829
Boise, ID 83701-0829
( -'J US. Mail
( J Hand Delivered
J Overnight Mail
( J Facsimile
DIRECT TESTIMONY OF DANIEL L. TRAM PUSH - 32
IPUC Case Nos. GNR-03-08 and GNR-03-
S:\CLlENTS\1233\170\Direct Testimony of Daniel L Trampush.DOC
Lance A. Tade, Manager
State Government Affairs
Citizens Telecommunications Company of Idaho
4 Triad Center, Ste. 200
Salt Lake City, UT 84180
Robert M. Nielsen
548 E Street
O. Box 706
Rupert, ID 83350
Charles H. Creason, Jr.
President and General Manager
Project Mutual Telephone Cooperative Association
507 G Street
O. Box 366
Rupert, ID 83350
DIRECT TESTIMONY OF DANIEL L. TRAMPUSH - 33
IPUC Case Nos. GNR-03-08 and GNR-03-
S:\CLlENTS\1233\170\Direct Testimony of Daniel L Trampush.DOC
( .;j U.S. Mail
J Hand Delivered
J Overnight Mail
J Facsimile
( JJ US. Mail
J Hand Delivered
J Overnight Mail
J Facsimile
( jJ US. Mail
J Hand Delivered
J Overnight Mail
J Facsimile
~flJ ~
Daniel L. Trampush
Director, Telecommunications Consulting
Moss Adams LLP
Dan has over 30 years of experience in the telecommunications industry.
Prior to joining the firm, Dan was National Director of Telecommunication
Consulting for Ernst & Young LLP where he was responsible for
coordinating services to clients throughout North America and providing
technical industry support to audit clients. The services he provides include
product costing and profitability analysis; business planning, transfer
pricing, development of access charges; and various accounting issues. He
has performed valuation studies, evaluated targets for merger and acquisition
purposes, evaluated organizational structures, and assisted clients with
franchise applications. Dan has also provided assistance in rate cases
provided training to client personnel on a variety of accounting and business
issues, and assisted cable television clients in conducting market entry
studies and pricing services.
In addition, Dan has provided expert testimony before the Federal
Communications Commission, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
S. Federal Court, and several state regulatory bodies on various
accounting and regulatory issues. He has delivered numerous seminars and
presentations on issues affecting the telecommunications industry, including
the development of competition, capital recovery, service and product
costing, and alternative regulatory frameworks. He also served for three
years as Chief Financial Officer for a publicly traded Competitive Local
Exchange Carrier with over $1 billion in assets. His responsibilities
encompassed accounting and SEC reporting, finance (including four publick
offerings), and investor relations.
DIRECT TESTIMONY OF DANIEL L. TRAMPUSH
IPUC Case Nos. GNR-03-08 and GNR-03-
EXHIBIT NO. 301
CLEAR TALK COVERAGE AREA -Idaho Exchanges and Wire Centers
Idaho PUC Docket No. GNR-T -tl3-8
EXHIBIT 1 TO CLEAR TALK DIRECT TESTIMONY
:I:::::::::::::n:m:::::::::m:m:::mr:t:*:t:j:M:~::m:II:::::::I:::::::::::t::::::mI:m:::mm:::::::I:n:ttt::::::I:::::::::::::ltm:::lm:m::::I::::I:::::::::mr:kf:r:::I:::::::m:t:::::Iftm ::lliitw:i:w:rut:lli:::w:r:l::t:tm:t:m::I:~:il:f:i:tmit:I:::::::::
Owest Communications/RBOC American Falls Power AMFLIDMARS1 American Falls
Blackfoot Bin ham BLFTIDMADSO Blackfoot
Note: Pursuant to PUC Order No.Bliss Goodin BLSSIDMARS1 Bliss
29261 , dated 6/10/2003, Clear Talk Buhl Twin Falls BUHLlDMARS1 Buhl
was desi nated as an Eli ible Burle Cassia BRL YIDMADSO Burle
Telecommunications Carrier in these Firth Bin ham FRTHIDMARS1 Shelle
Listed Qwest Exchan e Areas Fort Hall Bin ham RVSDIDMARS1 Pocatello
Goodin Goodin GDNGIDMARS1 Goodin
Idaho Falls Bonneville IDFLIDMADS1 Idaho Falls
Inkom Bannock INKMIDMARS1 Pocatello
Jerome Jerome JERMIDNMDSO Jerome
Kimberl Twin Falls KMBRIDMARS1 Kimber!
Lava Hot S rin Bannock LHSPIDMARS1 Lava Hot S rin s
McCammon Bannock MCCMIDMARS1 McCammon
Pocatello Bannock PCTLIDMAOS1 . Pocatello
Rexbur Madison RXBGIDMAOSO Rexbur
Ri b Madison RGBYIOMARS1 Ri b
Shelle Bonneville SHL YIOMARS1 Shelle
Twin Falls Twin Falls TWFLIOMAOSO Twin Falls
Ucon Bonneville RGBYIDMARS1 Idaho Falls
Wendell Goodin WNOLIOMARS1 Wendell
Citizen Telecom of 10 Aberdeen Power ABROIOXCOSO Aberdeen
DIRECT TESTIMONY OF DANIEL L. TRAMPUSH
IPUC Case Nos. GNR-03-08 and GNR-O3-
EXHIBIT NO. 302
Page 1 of 1
Submitted by IA T Communications, Inc.
9/2/2003
DIRECT TESTIMONY OF DANIEL L. TRAMPUSH
IPUC Case Nos. GNR-03-08 and GNR-03-
EXHIBIT NO. 303
",-
,~o~
,,-
:Ii
2",
E-- E-;'
=== ."~ ~
~ 'i'
?- ~
:::E5~b ~ ":00 z
~ "
E-- gj t::
C,) C,) CII
gj
C,)
"" 2 ~0"" ~
vaoauou' 'LO' VL
Nextel Communications NXTL
Company Profile
With 9.2 million customers in the United States,
Nextel Communications is the fifth-largest wireless
carrier. The company s Direct Connect feature allows
to customers to instantly communicate--without a
traditional dialup--as they would using a
walkie-talkie. This feature is what mainly
differentiates Nextel among business users. the
company s bread-and-butter clientele. Motorola. the
exclusive provider of iDEN handsets to Nextel. owns
14% of the company.
Management
Nextel's key shareholders are Motorola, asset
manager Legg Mason. and wireless pioneer Craig
McCaw. Insiders have been buying Nextel shares.
COO Jim Mooney recently resigned after just one
year with the firm.
Strategy
Nextel Communications targets mainly the high-end
business user. This has resulted in a subscriber base
that is one of the most profitable in the industry. with
the highest monthly bills and the lowest churn rate.
Part of the reason for Nextel's success is the Direct
Connect feature, which functions much like a
two-way radio.
................................................................
2001 Edmund Halley Drive
Aeston. VA 20191
www.nextel.com
Growth ( B I 1998 1999 2000 2001
Revenue %210.65.50.34.
Earnings/Share %NMF NMF NMF NMF
Book Value/Share %NMF NMF 35.NMF
Dividends/Share %NMF NMF NMF NMF
................................................................
Nextel is a growth machine. Sales soared 26% in the September
quarter. driven by 480.000 new users and the highest average
revenue per user in the industry. Nexte! now has 10.1 million
subscribers. and projects 10.6 million at year's end.
Profitability I C-I 1999
Return on Assets % -B.3
Oper Cash Flow $MiI 324
- Cap Spending $MiI 1 947
= Free Cash Flow $Mil -623
2000 2001 TIM
5 -13.0 -
576 1 129 1,B70
3.294 3.41B 2 155
71B -289 -2B5
................................................................
Nextel has been a money pit; however. shareholders should see
a return in the next few years as strong sales growth and better
operating efficiencies lead to profits. Nextel expects EBITOA to
reach $3 billion in 2002--growth of 58% from 2001.
Financial Health I D+) 1999 2000 2001 09-
Long-term Debt $Mil 10 312 14 629 14 720 13.104
Total Equity$Mil 2.2B3 745 -B65 561
Debt/Equity Ratio 4.8.4 ELB 23.
................................................................
Nextel has smartly repurchased deeply discounted debt using
cash and equity: the violation of debt covenants is no longer an
issue. The firm will burn through cash of less than $1 billion this
year. meaning it will end 2002 with roughly $2 billion.
Rating
***
Industry
Wireless Service
Investment Style
Em Large Growth
Risk Moat Size
High Narrow
Stock Type
Spec. Growth
Nextel Communications
Verizon Communications
AT&T Wireless Services
Market Cap Debt/12 Mo Trailing Price/Cash
$Mil Equity Sales $Mil Flow
11.124 23.464
106 011 1.4 67.422 4.7
15.300 0.4 15.112
Competition
Annual Total Return % -
F,~~~iY~~r:E~d:'D~~~;';b~;"""""" 'i997""""'" '199B"""""'" i999""""" "ioao"""""" 'ZO01
""""'"
Revenue $Mil 739 2.295 3.7B6 5.714 7.6B9
Netlncome$Mil -643 -BOl -530 -024 -B5B
Earnings Per Share $ -3.30 -23 -2.40 -35 -
Shares Outstanding Mil 499 55B 639 759 779
Return on Equity % ELB NMF -67.0 -5B.7 NMF
Net Margin % ELB -78.5 -40.4 -17.9 -37.
Asset Turnover 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.
Financial Leverage 5.NMF B.l 13.NMF
Valuation Ratios Stock Rei to Industry Rei to S&P 500 Major Fund HoldersPrice/Earnings NMF Legg Mason Focus
Price/Book 19.B 7.3 6.Pro Funds Ultra Wireless Inv
Price/Sales 1.0.5 0.7 Fidelity Leveraged Company Stock
Price/Cash Flow 5.9 0.5 0.Jundt Growth I
"'~ fQ ~ij9~~~ t~~ ~i\ ~ Y (t:rJ:dajft.~tf$fi) j ~ r! ~,~i?~~~QQg~ '~tg~~fl ~~~~~ji\ t~~! ~ i~,i*1~i .
We attribute Nextel's strong showing in a soft
economy to its focus on Corporate America and the
popularity of Direct Connect. It is the only wireless
carrier worth owning, in our opinion.
Unlike rivals obsessed with subscriber growth,
Nextel doesn t wave a cell phone at every Tom, Dick
and Harry. Instead. it skims the cream of the crop:
lucrative business customers who tend to be heavy
cell phone users and who are more concerned with
quality and features than price. As a result. Nextel'
average revenue per user is the highest in the
industry at roughly $70 per month. And because
market saturation is making it increasingly difficult to
find new, high-value subscribers, it is imperative for
carriers to retain existing customers. While the
Sprints of the world struggle with a customer exodus
Nextel has kept subscriber churn to roughly 2'\'0. the
lowest among the major wireless carriers.
Nextel's strong performance is due primarily to
Direct Connect. No other operator can offer a similar
push-to-talk service, which explains why 90% of
Nextel's new subscribers corne from another carrier.
Nextel should add to its lead in push-to-talk
technology in 2003 when it unveils the next
generation of service. Nationwide Direct Connect
which will allow users in Boston. for example. to
390 "'2003 Morningstar. Inc. All rights reserved. Intended for United States residents only. this report is lor information purposes and
should not be considered a solicitation to buy or sell any s""urity. Visitwww.momingstar.com for your research.
reach those in San Francisco. In age whe
carriers compete solely on price. Direct
unique service that gives Nextel a sizablmoat.
Nextel's competitive advantage is s
our view. Although Sprint plans to some
push-to-talk feature. liquidity issues will
force it to scale back capital spending.
exclusivity on qChat. Gualcomm s third
(3G) push-to-talk technology, protects
from rivals who may be looking at the
As a result, Nextel need not frantic
upgrades to gain an edge on rivals. Th ,
timeline for when Nextel's network must'
the next digital standard. Rather. in200~
flip the switch on new vocoder compr
from Motorola that promises to do
data-throughput rates and network
suspect 3G will be a big dud. leading toJ
on 3G investments. Thus. we applaud N
deferral of 3G until demand warrants
, p
shareholder capital.
MnRNINGSJARIID Stocks 500