20030908Ishihara Direct for Clear Talk.pdf

BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF
IAT COMMUNICATIONS, INc., d.
NTCH-IDAHO, INc. OR CLEAR TALK
FOR DESIGNATION AS AN ELIGIBLE
TELECOMMUNICATIONS CARRIER
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION
OF NPCR, INC. d.a. NEXTEL PARTNERS
SEEKING DESIGNATION AS AN
ELIGIBLE TELEC OMl\.1UNIC A TIONS
CARRIER
Case No. GNR- T -03-
Case No. GNR-03-
DIRECT TESTIMONY OF GLENN W.ISHIHARA ON BEHALF OF
IA T COMMUNICATIONS, INC. DBA CLEAR TALK
(;:. .
""YC:)
'--,-'.._-, '
v-:- '
----
C':'
, ' "
fT1
1..0
II.
III.
IV.
VI.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
IDENTIFICATION OF WITNESS, FACTUAL BACKGROUND, AND
PURPOSE OF TESTIMONY ............................................................................................
STANDARDS FOR ETC DESIGNATION ......................................................................
DESCRIPTION OF CLEAR TALK'S SERVICE........................................................... 10
ADVERTISING OF CLEAR TALK'S SERVICE ..........................................................
SERVICE AREAS IN WHICH CLEAR TALK SEEKS ETC
DESIGNATION ..................................................................................................................
PUB LI C INTEREST..................... ...................... ....... ................ ......... .............. ......... ...... ... 22
AFFIDAVIT (1 PAGE)
EXHIBIT A (1 PAGE)
Ishihara --
Clear Talk
DIRECT TESTIMONY OF GLENN W. ISHIHARA
IDENTIFICATION OF WITNESS, FACTUAL BACKGROUND, AND
PURPOSE OF TESTIMONY
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME, PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT, AND
BUSINESS ADDRESS.
My name is Glenn W. Ishihara. I am president ofIAT Communications, Inc.
a Delaware corporation , and chief financial officer ofNTCH-Idaho, Inc., an
Idaho corporation, collectively doing business as Clear Talk ("Clear Talk"
Clear Talk's offices are located at 233 N. Main Street, Pocatello, Idaho
83204.
WHAT ARE YOUR RESONSIBILITIES WITHIN CLEAR TALK?
My primary responsibilities are to oversee Clear Talk's financial operations.
I am involved in regulatory and legislative matters for Clear Talk, at both the
state and federal levels. I participate in the filing and management of Clear
Talk's applications for Eligible Telecommunications Carrier ("ETC") status
in Idaho and Colorado, and potentially several other state commission and
Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") dockets. I have substantial
knowledge about the products and services offered by Clear Talk, as well as
Clear Talk's network and business operations. I have substantial knowledge
about the service offerings Clear Talk offers in Idaho, including their features
pricing, and services. I am also involved in the management of regulatory
proceedings in several states involving E911, CALEA, etc.
PLEASE DESCRIBE YOUR WORK EXPERIENCE.
I have worked for Clear Talk since June 1999. Prior tojoining Clear Talk, I
was involved in managing several businesses, including a public-private
partnership in the real estate industry.
PLEASE DESCRIBE YOUR EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND.
I hold both a B.S. Degree in Finance and an M.RA. from the University of
Southern California.
DOES CLEAR TALK CURRENTLY PROVIDE
TELECOMMUNICA TIONS SERVICE IN IDAHO?
Clear Talk is a "telecommunications carrier" as defined in 47 US.
~153(49). Clear Talk is authorized by the FCC and provides commercial
mobile radio services ("CMRS") under the brand name "Clear Talk" in FCC-
defined Basic Trading Areas No. 451 (Twin Falls), 202 (Idaho Falls), and 353
(Pocatello), which cover a substantial portion of southeast Idaho, including
various exchange areas and/or wirecenters in Idaho. The CMRS services
provided by Clear Talk in Idaho include mobile telephony, 911 , and several
other features and services. Clear Talk has been serving the communications
needs ofIdaho consumers in these areas since 2001.
TURNING TO THE MATTER OF UNIVERSAL SERVICE, DOES
CLEAR TALK CURRENTLY CONTRIBUTE TO THE FUNDING
FOR UNIVERSAL SERVICE?
At the present time, federal regulations require most CMRS carriers to
contribute approximately 28 percent of their revenues to the funding of
federal universal service. Many states, including Idaho, also require Clear
Talk to contribute to the funding of the state equivalent of universal service.
Ishihara --
Clear Talk
Clear Talk makes quarterly contributions to the Idaho Telecommunications
Service Assistance Program ("ITSAP"
IS THE COMPANY PRESENTLY ABLE TO DRAW FROM THE
FEDERAL UNIVERSAL SERVICE FUND FOR THE PROVISION OF
THE SUPPORTED SERVICES IN IDAHO?
No. Until Clear Talk is designated as an ETC in the requested exchange areas
and/or wirecenters within Clear Talk's FCC-defined service boundaries, Clear
Talk is not able to draw from the federal universal service fund for those
areas. Upon designation as an ETC, Clear Talk will be eligible to receive
universal service support in the designated exchange areas and/or wirecenters
which designation will allow Clear Talk to expand its high-quality, low-cost
wireless service to more rural customers and will allow Clear Talk to compete
equitably with the incumbent ETCs, which are currently eligible for and
actually receiving federal universal service support. Without access to
universal service funding, a competitive carrier like Clear Talk will be limited
in its ability to provide a competitive telecommunications service to
consumers, especially in high-cost areas such as those served byrural
telephone companies in Idaho. Unlike urban areas where carriers are able to
compete based upon the cost of providing service, consumers in rural high-
cost areas will not experience the full benefits of competition unless
competitive carriers are designated as ETCs, and are thereby allowed entry to
the universal service market.
DlD CLEAR TALK FILE AN APPLICATION FOR DESIGNATION
AS AN ETC IN THE STATE OF IDAHO?
Ishihara --
Clear Talk
Yes. Clear Talk's Petition for ETC Designation (the "Application ) in this
proceeding was originally filed with the Idaho Public Utilities Commission
(the "Commission ) on February 3, 2003.
HAS CLEAR TALK PREVIOUSLY BEEN DESIGNATED AS AN ETC
IN IDAHO?
Yes.This Application is Clear Talk's first application for ETC designation
in Idaho. In connection with this Application, Clear Talk has already been
designated as an ETC in certain exchange areas in Idaho.
WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF YOUR TESTIMONY?
The purpose of my testimony is to describe how Clear Talk provides the
supported services in Idaho, to identify Clear Talk's plans for providing a
basIC universal service offering within the state ofIdaho in compliance with
the federal ETC criteria, and to show how the designation of Clear Talk as an
ETC in the proposed exchange areas and/or wirecenters is in the public
interest.
WHY IS CLEAR TALK SEEKING DESIGNATION AS AN ETC?
Section 214(e) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended by the
Telecommunications Act of 1996 ("Act ), provides that a carrier must obtain
desIgnation as an ETC from a state commission in order to be eligible to
receIve universal service support.
IS IT CLEAR TALK'S INTENT TO OBTAIN UNIVERSAL SERVICE
SUPPORT FOR THE PROVISION OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS
SERVICES TO THE PUBLIC?
Yes.
1 Idaho Public Utilities Commission, Order No. 29261, dated June 10 2003, Docket No. GNR-
03-
Ishihara --
Clear Talk
II.STANDARDS FOR ETC DESIGNATION
ARE WffiELESS PROVIDERS SUCH AS CLEAR TALK ELIGIBLE
TO BE DESIGNATED AS ETCs?
Yes. Both the Act and the FCC's decision In the Matter of Federal-State
Joint Board on Universal Service CC Docket 96-, Report and Order, FCC
97 -157 (May 8, 1997) ("Universal Service Order ) establish the directives for
the Commission to follow in making ETC designations. Section 214(e)
specifically provides for the designation of all telecommunications carriers
which includes a wireless provider such as Clear Talk, as ETCs for federal
universal service support. The FCC has further concluded:
We agree with the Joint Board's analysis and recommendation that
any telecommunications carrier using any technology, including
wireless technology, is eligible to receive universal service support if
it meets the criteria under Section 214(e)(1).
Universal Service Order, ~ 145 (emphasis added). In fact, the Idaho Public
Utilities Commission has already determined that Clear Talk meets the
requirements under Section 214(e)(1),2 which are as follows:
common carrier designated as an eligible
telecommunications carrier under paragraph (2) or (3) shall be
eligible to receive universal service support in accordance
with section 254 and shall, throughout the service area for
which the designation is received---
(A) Offer the services that are supported by Federal
universal service support mechanisms under Section
254(c), either using its own facilities or a combination
of its own facilities and resale of another carrier
services (including the services offered by another
eligible telecommunications carrier); and
2 Idaho P.u.c., Order No. 29261, dated Jlll1e 10 2003, Docket No. GNR-O3-
Ishihara --
Clear Talk
(B) Advertise the availability of such services and the
charges therefore using media of general distribution.
47 US.c. ~ 214(e)(1) (emphases added).
IN WHAT AREAS IS CLEAR TALK SEEKING DESIGNATION AS
AN ETC?
Clear Talk is seeking designation as an ETC in certain exchange areas and/or
wirecenters within the FCC-defined Basic Trading Areas ("BTAs ) for which
Clear Talk has been granted a license in Idaho. A list of Clear Talk'
proposed designated service areas is attached as Exhibit A to this testimony.
The appropriateness of these requested service area designations is discussed
later in this testimony.
UNDER THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1996, WHAT ARE
THE PREREQUISITES FOR DESIGNATION AS AN ETC?
Section 214(e)(2) provides that a "state commission shall upon its own
motion or upon request designate a common carrier that meets the
requirement of paragraph (1) as an eligible telecommunications carrier for a
service area designated by the commission." 47 US.c. ~ 214(e)(2) (emphasis
added). An applicant meets the requirements of paragraph (1) of section
214(e) if it: (1) is a common carrier; (2) will offer the supported services; (3)
will advertise the availability of the supported services; and (4) will make the
supported services available throughout a designated service area.
THE FIRST CRITERION FOR ETC DESIGNATION UNDER
SECTION 214(e)(I) IS THAT OF A COMMON CARRIER. IS CLEAR
TALK A CO MM 0 N CARRIER?
Ishihara -
Clear Talk
Yes. Clear Talk is a "common carrier" for purposes of obtaining ETC
designation under 47 US.c. sec. 214(e)(1). A common carrier is generally
defined in 47 US.c. ~ 153(10) as a person engaged as a common carrier on a
for-hire basis in interstate communications utilizing either wire or radio
technology. The FCC's regulations specifically provide that a Commercial
Mobile Radio Service provider ("CMRS " more commonly known as
Personal Communications Service" or "PCS"), such as Clear Talk, is a
common carrier. See 47 c.F.R. ~ 20.9(a)(7).
AS FOR THE SECOND REQUIREMENT, THAT CLEAR TALK
OFFER THE SUPPORTED SERVICES, WHAT ARE THE
SUPPORTED SERVICES THAT MUST BE OFFERED?
The FCC has identified the following nine services and functionalities as the
core services to be offered by an ETC and supported by federal universal
service support mechanisms:
1. voice-grade access to the public switched network;
2. local usage;
3. dual tone multi-frequency signaling or its functional equivalent;
4. single-party service or its functional equivalent;
5. access to emergency services;
6. access to operator services;
7. access to inter exchange services;
8. access to directory assistance; and
9. toll limitation for qualifying low-income consumers.
47 c.F.R. ~ 54.101(a).
Ishihara --
Clear Talk
III.DESCRIPTION OF CLEAR TALK'S SERVICE
COULD YOU EXPLAIN EACH OF THE SUPPORTED SERVICES
AND HOW CLEAR TALK PROVIDES THESE SERVICES?
Yes. Clear Talk currently offers and is able to provide its Idaho customers
the services and functionalities identified by the FCC in 47 c.F.R. ~
54.101(a) within its designated service areas. Each of these federal universal
services is discussed more fully below.
Voice-grade access to the public switched telephone network.The
FCC concluded that voice-grade access means the ability to make and receive
phone calls, within a bandwidth of approximately 2700 Hertz within the 300
to 3000 Hertz frequency range. See Universal Service Fourth Order on
Reconsideration, FCC 97-420 (Dec. 30, 1997). There is no requirement to
support high-speed data transmissions. See Universal Service Order ~~ 63-
64. Clear Talk meets this requirement of providing voice-grade access to the
public switched network. Through its interconnection arrangement with
Qwest, all customers of Clear Talk are able to make and receive calls on the
public switched network within the specified bandwidth.
Local usage. Beyond providing access to the public switched
network, an ETC must incl ude an amount of free local usage as part of a
universal service offering. To date, the FCC has not quantified a minimum
amount of local usage required to be included in a universal service offering,
but has initiated a separate proceeding to address this issue. See Universal
Service Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 98-278 (Oct.26 , 1998)
Ishihara --
Clear Talk
October 1998 NPRM"). As it relates to local usage, the NPRM sought
comments on a definition of the basic service package that must be offered by
all ETCs. SpecificalIy, the FCC sought comments on how much if any, local
usage should be required to be provided to customers as part of a universal
service offering. October 1998 NPRM, ~~ 46-52. In the Universal Service
Order, the FCC deferred a determination on the amount of local usage that a
carrier would be required to provide. Universal Service Order, ~ 67. Any
minimum local usage requirement established by the FCC as a result of the
October 1998 NPRM will be applicable to all designated ETCs, not simply
wireless service providers. Clear Talk wilI comply with any and all minimum
local usage requirements adopted by the FCC or any applicable requirements
adopted by the Commission. In the meantime, Clear Talk wilI meet the local
usage requirement by including local usage as part of its basic universal
service offering ("BUS"
Dual-tone. multi-frequency ("DTMF") signaling. or its functional
equivalent.DTMF is a method of signaling that facilitates the transportation
of call set-up and call detail information. Consistent with the principles of
competitive and technological neutrality, the FCC permits carriers to provide
signaling that is functionally equivalent to DTMF in satisfaction of this
service requirement. 47 C.R. ~ 54.101(a)(3). Clear Talk currently uses out-
of-band digital signaling and in-band multi-frequency ("MF") signaling that
is functionally equivalent to DTMF signaling. Clear Talk therefore meets the
requirement to provide DTMF signaling or its functional equivalent.
Ishihara --
Clear Talk
Single-party service or its functional equivalent.Single-party
service" means that only one party will be served by a subscriber loop or
access line, in contrast to a multi-party line. Universal Service Order ~ 62.
Clear Talk meets the requirement of single-party service by providing a
dedicated message path for the length of all customer calls.
Access to emergency services. The ability to reach a public safety
answering point ("PSAP") by dialing 911 is a required service in any
universal service offering. Enhanced 911 or E911, which includes the
capability of providing both automatic numbering information ("ANI") and
automatic location information ("ALI"), is only required if a PSAP certifies
that it is capable of receiving and utilizing ANI and ALl and formally
, requests such information from the carrier. See Universal Service Order
, ~~
72- 73. Clear Talk currently provides all of its customers with access to
emergency services by dialing 911 in satisfaction of this requirement. Clear
Talk stands ready to provide E911 service to its customers once a PSAP
submits a compliant request to Clear Talk.
Access to operator services.Access to operator services is defined as
any automatic or live assistance provided to a consumer to arrange for the
billing or completion, or both, of a telephone call. Universal Service Order
75. Clear Talk meets this requirement by providing all of its customers with
access to operator services provided by either Clear Talk or other entities (e.
LECs, IXCs, etc.
Access to interexchange service. A universal service provider must
offer consumers access to interexchange service to make and receive
Ishihara --
Clear Talk
interexchange calls. Equal access, however, is not required. "The FCC
do(es) not include equal access to interexchange service among the services
supported by universal service mechanisms.Universal Service Order, ~ 78.
Clear Talk presently meets this requirement by providing all of its customers
with the ability to make and receive interexchange or toll calls through direct
interconnection arrangements Clear Talk has with several interexchange
carriers (IXCs). Additionally, customers are able to reach their IXC of choice
through the use of calling cards.
Access to directory assistance. The ability to place a call directly to
directory assistance is a required service offering. White pages directories
and listings are not r~quired service offerings. Universal Service Order
, ~~
80-81. Clear Talk meets this requirement by providing all of its customers
with access to directory assistance by dialing "411" or "555-1212.
Toll limitation for qualifying low-income consumers.An ETC must
offer either "toll control" or "toll blocking" services to qualifying Lifeline
customers at no charge. The FCC no longer requires an ETC to provide both
services as part of the toll limitation service required under 47 C.R. ~
54.101(a)(9). See Universal Service Fourth Order on Reconsideration, FCC
97-420 (Dec. 30, 1997). In particular, all ETCs must provide toll blocking,
which allows customers to block the completion of outgoing toll calls.
Universal Service Order, ~ 82. Once designated an ETC, Clear Talk will
participate in Lifeline and other lower-income programs, as required, and will
provide toll blocking in satisfaction of federal requirements. Clear Talk
currently provides toll-blocking services, at no charge, for international calls
Ishihara --
Clear Talk
and customer selected toll calls. Clear Talk can and will utilize the same toll
blocking technology to provide this service to its Lifeline and other lower-
income customers, at no charge, as part of its universal service offerings once
designated as an ETc.
HOW WILL CLEAR TALK COMBINE THE SUPPORTED
SERVICES INTO A UNIVERSAL SERVICE OFFERING?
Clear Talk currently provides the supported services using its existing
network infrastructure and licensed CMRS spectrum. Clear Talk will
continue to deliver the supported services to consumers using the same
antennae, cell sites, towers, trunk lines, mobile switching center, and
interconnection facilities used for its existing PCS service. Clear Talk also
regularly deploys additional cell sites, as necessary, to maximize signal
coverage and service availability. In order to meet service requests
throughout of the entirety of designated exchange areas and/or wire centers
Clear Talk may, as needed, contract to use the facilities of other facilities-
based carriers, as allowed by federal law.
Clear Talk intends to offer the supported services to universal service
customers in a basic universal service offering, using Clear Talk's PCS
network in conjunction with fixed wireless local loop equipment. Clear
Talk'BUS carl be offered and provided without any changes to Clear Talk'
existing network.
WHAT IS WIRELESS LOCAL LOOP SERVICE?
A wireless local loop involves the use of a wireless access unit at a
customer s location to transmit the signal to the nearest cell site. The wireless
Ishihara --
Clear Talk
access unit is a piece of equipment that serves as the interface to the Clear
Talk network over the CMRS spectrum in the same manner as a conventional
PCS handset. A wireless access unit is typically a desk unit that is more
powerful than a conventional handset and simulates dial-tone.
HOW IS WIRELESS LOCAL LOOP SERVICE DIFFERENT FROM
CONVENTIONAL PCS SERVICE?
The principal difference is in the capabilities of the customer
transmitter/receiver, with the wireless local loop being able to provide
stronger transmitting/receiving capabilities than a mobile handset. The
network cannot distinguish the two types of service. However, although
wireless local loop technology is identical to conventional PCS service, it is
generally marketed more as a residence-based service that competes with
landline service offerings. As a result, advertising materials and the customer
service agreement reflect this difference.
HOW DOES WIRELESS LOCAL LOOP SERVICE GIVE CLEAR
TALK AN ADVANTAGE AS IT PROVIDES UNIVERSAL
SERVICES?
There are spots within its coverage area where a conventional PCS customer
may not have strong signal coverage. In these areas, the wireless local loop
technology offering might be more appropriate for the customer. Because the
wireless access unit is typically more powerful than a conventional handset
reception is greatly improved. This offering gives Clear Talk another option
as it seeks to meet requests for universal services within its designated ETC
service areas. At the same time, Clear Talk is able to provide all of its
customers with a much larger "local" calling area than a landline carrier, so
Ishihara --
Clear Talk
that a Clear Talk universal service customer will likely incur significantly
fewer toll caBs.
WHAT OTHER MEANS CAN CLEAR TALK EMPLOY TO MEET
REQUESTS FOR SERVICE?
The FCC has made clear that an ETC must be given an opportunity to expand
its network, over time, to meet reasonable requests for service. Clear Talk
accepts that obligation, and fully expects that as its network expands over
time, it will be able to meet all such requests. If Clear Talk receives a request
for service in an area outside its existing PCS signal coverage, there are
numerous ways for Clear Talk to provide service. A technician can install a
high-gain antenna at the location, or the power at an existing cell site can be
turned up or redirected, or antennae can be adjusted (e., azimuth and
downtilt), or microwave equipment can be installed, or new cell sites could be
built, or Clear Talk can contract for the use of another carrier s facilities.
Through one or more of these options, Clear Talk will be able to meet
requests for service throughout the entirety of its designated ETC service
areas, either using its own facilities or through combination of its own
facilities and resale of another carrier s facilities.
IS THE FCC CURRENTLY CONSIDERING WHETHER ETC
DESIGNA TION FOR A WIRELESS CARRIER IS APPROPRIATE?
No. The FCC has already definitively concluded that ETC designation for a
wireless carrier is appropriate. The FCC's Universal Service Order discusses
at length the different types of carriers eligible to receive universal service
support. Universal Service Order, ~~ 127-81. Specifically, the FCC
Ishihara --
Clear Talk
determined that a wireless carrier, such as Clear Talk, may be designated as
an ETC under Section 214(e). The FCC stated:
. .
. any telecommunications carrier using any technology,
including wireless technology, is eligible to receive universal
service support if it meets the criteria established in Section
214(e)(I). We agree with the Joint Board that any wholesale
exclusion of a class of carriers by the (FCC) would be
inconsistent with the language of the statute and the pro-
competitive goals of the 1996 Act. The treatment granted to
certain wireless carriers under section 332(c)(3)(A) does not
allow states to deny wireless carriers eligible status.Id.
IS THERE ANY DOUBT THAT THE DESIGNATION OF WIRELESS
CARRIERS AS ETCs IS APPROPRIATE?
No. Over the past five years, the FCC and state commissions in more than 20
jurisdictions have designated CMRS carriers as ETCs. The appropriateness
and authority of the FCC and state commissions to designate wireless carriers
as ETCs is well-settled. Indeed, the Idaho Commission has already
designated Clear Talk as a competitive ETC within certain exchange areas
and/or wire centers in Idaho.
CAN YOU TELL US ANY SPECIFICS REGARDING THE "BASIC
UNIVERSAL SERVICE" THAT CLEAR TALK PLANS TO OFFER IF
DESIGNATED AS AN ETC IN IDAHO?
Yes. Subject to Commission approval, Clear Talk currently plans to include
the following as part of its Basic Universal Service offering ("BUS"
Local usage
Ishihara --
Clear Talk
A local calling area equivalent to, or greater than, the local calling
area offered by the LEC
A basic monthly service charge that is comparable to the existing
LEC's
Ability to add features like voicemail and caller identification for
an additional charge
Four-digit dialing to other Clear Talk subscribers in the same
NXX
Favorable purchase terms for customer premises equipment
IV.ADVERTISING OF CLEAR TALK SERVICE
A THIRD REQUIREMENT FOR DESIGNATION AS AN ETC IS TO
ADVERTISE THE A V AILABILITY OF THE SUPPORTED
SERVICES. HOW DOES CLEAR TALK INTEND TO ADVERTISE
THE A V AILABILITY OF THE SUPPORTED SERVICES?
Based upon the recommendations of the Joint Board, the FCC has not
adopted particular standards regarding advertising using media of general
distribution under Section 214(e)(1). Universal Service Order, ~ 148.
Nonetheless, Clear Talk will advertise the availability of the supported
services and the corresponding charges in a manner that fully informs the
general public within the designated service areas of the services and charges.
Clear Talk currently advertises its wireless services through several different
media, including newspaper, television, radio, and billboard advertising.
Clear Talk also maintains various retail store locations throughout its
Ishihara --
Clear Talk
authorized service areas, which provide an additional source of advertising.
Clear Talk's current advertising is not limited to advertising in business
publications alone, but rather includes publications targeted to the general
residential market. Clear Talk will use the same media of general distribution
that it currently employs to advertise its universal service offerings
throughout the service areas designated by the Commission. Clear Talk will
also comply with all form and content requirements, if any, adopted by the
FCC or the Commission in the future and required of all designated ETCs.
SERVICE AREAS IN WHICH CLEAR TALK SEEKS ETC
DESIGNATION
YOU STATE THAT CLEAR TALK WILL MAKE AVAILABLE A
UNIVERSAL SERVICE OFFERING TO ALL CONSUMERS WITHIN
A DESIGNATED SERVICE AREA. HOW SHOULD THE
COMMISSION EST ALBISH THE DESIGNATED SERVICE AREAS?
The Commission clearly has the authority to establish universal service areas.
A State Commission shall upon its own motion or
upon request designate a common carrier that meets
the requirements of paragraph (1) as an eligible
telecommunications carrier for a service area
designated by the State commission
47 US.c. ~ 214(e)(2) (emphasis added). The service areas established by the
Commission must be consistent with the universal service goals of
competitive and technological neutrality. Clear Talk seeks designation as an
ETC in certain exchange areas and/or wirecenters (as set forth in Exhibit A)
that fall within Clear Talk's authorized service areas under its FCC licenses.
Clear Talk will make the supported services available to consumers within its
Ishihara --
Clear Talk
designated service areas using its own facilities and/or, if needed, a
combination of its own facilities and those of other facilities-based carriers.
HOW ARE THE SERVICE AREAS DETERMINED UNDER
SECTION 214(e) FOR PURPOSES OF ETC DESIGNATION?
Section 214(e)(5) of the Act defines the term "service area" as a geographic
area established by a state commission for the purpose of determining
universal service obligations and support mechanisms. For an area served by
a rural telephone company, Section 214(e)(5) and FCC Rule 54.207(b)
provide that the term "service area" means the rural telephone company
study area " unless and until the FCC and the states establish a different
definition for such a company under the FCC's procedures prescribed in Rule
54.207(c) and (d). A "study area" is generally considered to be the rural
incumbent LEC's existing certificated service areas in a given state.
Universal Service Order, ~ 172, fn. 434. The FCC recommended that states
seek to redefine rural telephone company service areas to better accommodate
competition and serve the universal service policy objectives of the Act.
Universal Service Order, ~ 190; see also 47 C.F.R. ~ 54.207(c)(3)(ii).
IS CLEAR TALK SEEKING ETC DESIGNATION IN EACH
SERVICE AREA CONTAINED WITHIN ITS AUTHORIZED PCS
LICENSED AREA?
Yes. Clear Talk reviewed and analyzed its PCS license areas and its existing
signal coverage. Using publicly available mapping software and Clear Talk'
own radio frequency signal propagation information (i., coverage), Clear
Talk determined the extent to which each exchange and/or wirecenter within
its PCS-licensed area is currently covered, and where coverage could be
Ishihara --
Clear Talk
extended if necessary to respond to a request for service. Clear Talk'
Application seeks ETC designation in all exchanges and/or wirecenter(s)
within Clear Talk's PCS-licensed area.
WHERE CLEAR TALK'S SIGNAL COVERAGE DOES NOT
APPEAR TO EXTEND OVER AN ENTffiE EXCHANGE AND/OR
WIRECENTER, DOES THE COMPANY REQUEST DESIGNATION
AS AN ETC IN ONLY PART OF THE EXCHANGE AND/OR
WIRECENTER?
Yes. Clear Talk requests ETC designation in partial exchanges and/or
wirecenters within its FCC-licensed BT A. Although the FCC has determined
that partial wirecenter designation is not required, the FCC has determined
that partial wire center designation is appropriate. Clear Talk therefore
requests that the Commission designate Clear Talk as an ETC throughout the
areas listed on Exhibit A.
WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY "PARTIAL WIRECENTER"
An ETC application need not show full coverage of a wirecenter - or
exchange -- to be designated throughout that wirecenter. In a case involving
another carrier s petition for preemption of a South Dakota order, the FCC
determined that ubiquitous coverage throughout a wirecenter is not required
in order for a competitive carrier to be designated an ETc.
We find the requirement that a carrier provide service to
every potential customer throughout the service area before
receiving ETC designation has the effect of prohibiting the
provision of service in high-cost areas. As an ETC, the
incumbent LEC is required to make service available to all
consumers upon request, but the incumbent LEC may not
have facilities to every possible consumer. We believe the
ETC requirements should be no different for carriers that are
not incumbent LECs. A new entrant, once designated as an
ETC, is required, as the incumbent is required, to extend its
network to serve new customers upon reasonable request.
Ishihara --
Clear Talk
We find, therefore, that new entrants must be allowed the
same reasonable opportunity to provide service to requesting
customers as the incumbent LEC, once designated as an
ETC. Thus, we find that a telecommunications carrier
inability to demonstrate that it can provide ubiquitous
service at the time of its request for designation as an ETC
should not preclude its designation as an ETc.
DeclaratOlY Ruling, Western Wireless Corporation Petition for Preemption of
an Order of the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission, CC Docket 96-
FCC 00-248, ~ 17 (reI. Aug. 10, 2000) (footnotes omitted) South Dakota
Preemption Order
WILL CLEAR TALK MEET THE ETC SERVICE OBLIGATION, AS
ARTICULATED IN THE SOUTH DAKOTA PREEMPTION ORDER
ALL OF THE EXCHANGE AREAS AND/OR WIRECENTERS FOR
WHICH IT SEEKS ETC DESIGNATION?
Yes. Clear Talk is commited to meeting the service obligations of an ETC, as
articulated in the South Dakota Preemption Order to "extend its network to
serve new customers upon reasonable request." Clear Talk is comfortable
making this commitment and is confident it will meet this commitment based
on its network, its options for enhancing and expanding its signal coverage
and facilities, and the basic universal service offering Clear Talk can offer to
its Idaho customers within the designated service areas.
VI.PUBLIC INTEREST
BEFORE DESIGNATING CLEAR TALK AS AN ETC IN THE
DESIGNATED AREAS, IS THE COMMISSION REQUIRED TO FIND
THAT THE DESIGNATION IS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST?
Ishihara --
Clear Talk
Yes. In territories served by a rural telephone company, a public interest
finding is required and is a prerequisite for designation as an ETc.
IS THE DESIGNATION OF CLEAR TALK AS AN ADDITIONAL
ETC IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST?
Yes. Designating Clear Talk as an ETC in Idaho will bring competition to
rural, high-cost areas, and competition is in the pubic interest. One of the
underlying purposes of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 is to "promote
competition and reduce regulation in order to secure lower prices and higher
quality services for American telecommunications consumers and encourage
the rapid deployment of new telecommunications technologies." 100 Stat. 56
(1996). The public interest standard under Section 214(e)(2) emphasizes
competition and consumer benefits-- not incumbent protection. As explained
by Senator Dorgan, who offered the amendment to the Senate bill inserting
the public interest requirement in Section 214(e)(2), "The best interests of
rural consumers are paramount." 141 Congo Rec. S7951 (June 8, 1995).
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. Rural consumers should be allowed to
choose services from a carrier that best meets the consumer
communications needs. Absent a choice of service providers, the consumer is
unable to make a selection based upon service quality, service availability, or
service rates. The incumbent provider has little or no incentive to introduce
new, innovative or advanced service offerings. Competition promises to
bring new and beneficial services to rural consumers in Idaho:
Ishihara --
Clear Talk
Clear Talk will offer universal services to rural consumers, as well as
services not currently provided by the landline LEC. For example, Clear Talk
may provide an expanded local calling area, which will benefit rural
consumers who currently pay toll charges to reach family, friends
government offices, health care providers, and businesses located outside of a
landline s restricted local calling area.
In addition to increased choices, Idaho rural consumers may also
experience lower rates. When compared side-by-side with other ETCs ' basic
universal service offerings, the rates for Clear Talk's BUS will be comparable
, if not less than, the local service rates charged by the incumbent LEC, and
Clear Talk will provide equivalent - or better - services and features.
Otherwise, Clear Talk will not likely attract any customers. Likewise, Clear
Talk's service quality will need to meet or exceed the quality of services
provided by the incumbent LEC in order for Clear Talk to obtain - and retain
-- customers. Designating Clear Talk as an ETC will also further the
deployment of Clear Talk's facilities-based network in Idaho.
Through the establishment of a competitive universal service system,
the rural consumer will be better able to keep pace with urban consumers in
terms of the availability - and price -- of telecommunications services. Clear
Talk stands ready, willing and able to bring competition to consumers in
Idaho, which will result in better consumer pricing, better service quality,
faster service availability, and better customer service. The increased choices
for rural consumers will advance universal service. There can be no dispute
Ishihara -
Clear Talk
that giving consumers a choice in services and service providers is in the
public interest.
DOES THIS CONCLUDE YOUR TESTIMONY?
Yes.
Ishihara -
Clear Talk
09(02/2003 14: 24 '"' 18773676824
, ,'
w ,..
,.--....
PAGE 01
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSiON
IN THE MATTER Of THE PETITION OF
IAT COMMUNICATIONS, INC., d.
NTCH-1DAHO, INC OR CLEAR T Al..K
FOR DESIGNATION AS AN ELIGIBLE
LECOMMUNICA T\ON S CARRIER
THE MATTER OF THE APPLlCA TION
OF NPCR, INc. d,a. NEXTEL PARTNERS
SEEKING DESIGNATION AS AN
ELlGlBJ..,E TELECOMMUNICATIONS
(' ARRIER
Case No. GNR-O3~
Case No. GNR-O3-
--'
AfFIDAVIT OF GLENN W.ISHIHARA
J HAVE READ the foregoing DIRECT TESTIMONY OF GLENN W.
ISHIHARA ON BEHALF OF IATCOMMUNJCATIONS. INC DBA CLEAR TALK
and J swear under penalty of perjury under the laws ofthe State of Idaho and the United
States of America that the statements colitained therein are true and correct to the best of
my knowledge, information and belief.
Glen
CLEAR TALK COVERAGE AREA --Idaho Exchanges and Wire Centers
Idaho PUC Docket No. GNR-T -03-8
EXHIBIT 1 TO CLEAR TALK DIRECT TESTIMONY
:::=::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::r::t8:r::w::t:j::w:::r:::::::%::::ttt:::rrmmr:ttt::::t:r::
:::::::
t::ttt::::::::t::::tt::::=:m:::t::t:::r::::::::::::jJ::t:r:t:::::tt::t::::::::::::::::r:::rn::~jtj:i:w:illi:!:::w:r:t:j:
::::::::::::::::
:::t:::i::lj:t:1:i:tt::::r
awest 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 awest Exchan e Areas Fort Hall Bin ham RVSDIDMARS1 Pocatello
Goodin Goodin GDNGIDMARS1 Goodin
Idaho Falls Bonneville IDFLIDMADS1 Idaho Falls
Inkpm Bannock INKMIDMARS1 Pocatello
Jerome Jerome JERMIDNMDSO Jerome
Kimberl Twin Falls KMBRIDMARS1 Kimberl
Lava Hot S rin Bannock LHSPIDMARS1 Lava Hot S rin
McCammon Bannock MCCMIDMARS1 McCammon
Pocatello Bannock PCTLIDMADS1 Pocatello
Rexbur Madison RXBGIDMADSO Rexbur
Ri b Madison RGBYIDMARS1 Ri b
Shelle Bonneville SHLYIDMARS1 Shelle
Twin Falls Twin Falls TWFLIDMADSO Twin Falls
Ucon Bonneville RGBYIDMARS1 Idaho Falls
Wendell Goodin WNDLIDMARS1 Wendell
Citizen Telecom of ID Aberdeen Power ABRDIDXCDSO Aberdeen
Page 1 of 1
Submitted by IAT Communications, Inc.
9/2/2003
CERTIFIcA TE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 2nd day of September, 2003 , I caused a true and
correct copy of the foregoing DIRECT TESTIMONY OF GLENN W. ISHIHARA ON
BEHALF OF CLEAR TALK to be served by the method indicated below, and addressed to the
following:
Jean Jewell
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
472 West Washington Street
Post Office Box 83720
Boise, Idaho 83720-0074
(X) US. Mail, Postage Prepaid
( )
Hand Delivered
( )
Overnight Mail
( )
Facsimile
( ) Electronic Mail
Dean 1. Miller, Esq.
420 West Bannock
Post Office Box 2564-83701
Boise, Idaho 83702
[phone] (Fax)
j oe(0mcdevitt - miller. com
(X) US. Mail, Postage Prepaid
( )
Hand Delivered
( )
Overnight Mail
( )
Facsimile
( ) Electronic Mail
Philip R. Schenkenberg, Esq.
2200 First National Bank Building
332 Minnesota Street
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
pschenkenberg(0briggs. com
(X) U S. Mail, Postage Prepaid
( )
Hand Delivered
( )
Overnight Mail
( ) Facsimile
( ) Electronic Mail
Conley Ward
Givens Pursley LLP
277 North 6th Street, Suite 200
Post Office Box 2720
Boise, Idaho 83701
[phone] (Fax)
mailto: cew(0gi venspursl ey. com
(X) US. Mail, Postage Prepaid
( )
Hand Delivered
( )
Overnight Mail
( )
Facsimile
( ) Electronic Mail
Lance A. Tade, Manager
State Government Affairs
Citizens Telecommunications Company of
Idaho
4 Triad Center, Suite 200
Salt Lake City, UT 84180
Itade(0czn. com
(X) US. Mail, Postage Prepaid
( )
Hand pelivered
( )
Overnight Mail
( )
Facsimile
( ) Electronic Mail
CLEAR TALK
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE - 1
Charles H. Creason, Jr.
President and General Manager
Project Mutual Telephone Cooperative
Association, Inc.
507 G Street
Post Office Box 366
Rupert, Idaho 83350
(X) US. Mail, Postage Prepaid
( ) Hand Delivered
( )
Overnight Mail
( )
Facsimile
( ) Electronic Mail
John Hammond, Deputy AG
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
Washington Street
Boise, Idaho 83720-0074
[phone] (Fax)
jhammon~puc.state.id.
(X) US. Mail, Postage Prepaid
( ) Hand Delivered
( )
Overnight Mail
( )
Facsimile
( ) Electronic Mail
Clay Sturgis, Senior Manager
MOSS ADAMS LLP
601 Riverside, Suite 1800
Spokane, W A 99201-0063
clays~mossadams.com
(X) US. Mail, Postage Prepaid
( ) Hand Delivered
( )
Overnight Mail
( )
Facsimile
( ) Electronic Mail
Morgan W. Richards, Esq.
Moffatt, Thomas, Barrett, Rock & Fields
101 S. Capitol Blvd, lOth Floor
P. O. Box 829
Boise, Idaho 83701-0829
[phone] (Fax)
mwr~moffatt. com
(X) US. Mail, Postage Prepaid
( ) Hand Delivered
( )
Overnight Mail
( )
Facsimile
( ) Electronic Mail
Mary S. Hobson
Stoel Rives LLP
101 S. Capitol Blvd, Suite 1900
Boise, Idaho 83702-5958
[phone] (Fax)
mshobson~stoel.com
(X) US. Mail, Postage Prepaid
( ) Hand Delivered
( )
Overnight Mail
( )
Facsimile
( ) Electronic Mail
CLEAR TALK
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE - 2
Robert M. Nielsen
548 E Street
Post Office Box 706
Rupert, Idaho 83350
(X) US. Mail, Postage Prepaid
( ) Hand Delivered
( )
Overnight Mail
( )
Facsimile
( ) Electronic Mail
Signed:
Clear Talk
CLEAR TALK
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE - 3