20061128Comments.pdf

frontier- RECEIVED
COMMUNICATIONS SOLUTIO~no NOV 28 Ai'~ 9:
O. Box 708970
Sandy, UT 84070-8970
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
IOi':c
;.-
;O PUE~L\i':: -
UTiLITIES COMLHSSIOd
November 27 2006
Mrs. Jean Jewell
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
472 West Washington Street
Boise, ill 83702
RE: Case No. INC-06-, In the Matter of the Petition of Inland Cellular Telephone
Company for Designation as an Eligible Telecommunications Carrier under 47 US.
Section 214(E)(2).
Mrs. Jewell
Please find enclosed the original and 8 copies of Frontier Communications of Idaho
comments in the above referenced matter. Also enclosed is the certificate of service for
these responses to parties of interest in this docket.
If you have any questions, please contact me.
Sincerely,
, Info Henni~
Manager, Government and External Affairs
RECE V'::P
..
I.~~
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
2006 NOV 28 AM 9: 56
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF
INLAND CELLULAR TELEPHONE COMPANY)
FOR DESIGNATION AS AN ELIGffiLE
TELECOMMUNICATIONS CARRIER UNDER
47 US.C. SECTION 214(E)(2)
ION..;n V'I i:.,; iI'ILI1 Fc'
" '
)UL
11.'-: r-ni'. v v '...n ~1 .. U i \
Case No: INC-06-
COMMENTS OF
CITIZENS TELECOMMUNICA nONS COMPANY OF IDAHO
D/B/A FRONTIER COMMUNICA nONS OF IDAHO
Citizens Telecommunications Company ofIdaho, d/b/a Frontier Communications of
Idaho ("Frontier ) respectfully submits these Comments pursuant to Idaho Public Utilities
Commission ("Idaho Commission ) Order No. 30152 in the above-referenced proceeding
regarding the petition filed by Inland Cellular Telephone Company ("Inland") for designation as
an Eligible Telephone Company ("ETC") within the state ofIdaho.
Inland's ETC Petition was filed with the Idaho Commission on June 29 2006. Frontier
filed a motion to intervene on September 1 , 2006. The Idaho Commission granted Frontier
motion in its Order No. 30144, dated October 5 2006.
As the Commission is aware, Frontier is a rural local exchange carrier providing local
exchange and other telecommunications services in 18 exchanges in Idaho. Frontier has been
certified as an ETC by the Idaho Commission and is eligible to received federal universal service
support.
Inland's application seeking ETC designation included a request for ETC designation in
portions of Frontier s Elk City and White Bird wire centers.! In its ETC Petition, Inland explains
I Exhibit D to hIland's ETC Petition dated June 26, 2006 identifies two Frontier wire centers (Elk City and White
Bird) which hIland partially serves and for which Inland is seeking ETC designation.
that there are areas within certain rural LEC wire centers that Inland will not serve because
Inland is not licensed by the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") to provide wireless
services in these areas within the rural ILEC exchanges.2 Inland's request for ETC designation
in its Elk City and White Bird wire centers is not in the public interest because Inland will only
serve a portion of the two Frontier wire centers. Frontier respectfully requests that the Idaho
Commission deny Inland's request to be designated as an ETC in Frontier s Elk City and White
Bird exchanges.
Inland's ETC Petition Fails to Satisfy the Public Interest Standard For ETC
Desismations.
Section 214(e)(2) ofthe Communications Act of 1934 grants the primary authority to
designate carriers as ETCs to state regulatory commissions.3 Under section 214(e)(2), "(uJpon
request and consistent with the public interest, convenience, and necessity, the 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
for a designated service area, so long as the requesting carrier meets the requirements of section
214(e)(1).4 Section 214(e)(2) further states: "(bJefore 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."s In short, the Idaho
Commission has the authority to determine whether Inland's ETC Petitions meet statutorily
prescribed requirements before granting Inland's ETC designation request.
2 hIland ETC Petition at ~ 10.
See 47 D.C. ~ 214(e)(2).
47 D.C. ~ 214(e)(I).
47 D.C. ~ 214(e)(2).
As discussed in more detail below, both the FCC and the Idaho Commission have
determined that the granting ofETC designation in less than a complete wire center is not in the
public interest because subwire center designation would encourage cream skimming. To allow
Inland to serve only a portion of the two Frontier s wire center while collecting revenues derived
from Frontier s cost to service all customers in these wire centers would unjustly enrich Inland
whose costs to serve the smaller area may well be lower. In addition, Frontier would be put at a
competitive disadvantage as it would continue to be required to provide service throughout its
entire Elk City and White Bird exchanges while Inland Cellular would only be responsible for a
portion of those wire center.
ll.The FCC's Vir2inia Cellular Order. Hi2hland Cellular Order and ETC Desi2nation
Rules Establish that Desi2natin2 an ETC for only a Portion of a Wire Center is
Inconsistent with the Public Interest.
In its ETC Petition, Inland suggests that the Idaho Commission should grant its ETC
request related to the partial wire centers in which it provides wireless service. Inland cites 47
c.F.R. 9 54.207 in support of its position that it should be granted ETC designation in the partial
exchanges it serves. However, 47 c.F.R. 9 54.207, which relates to the definition and possible
redefinition of a rural carrier s service area for purposes of receiving federal universal funding,
does not support Inland's argument.The FCC has specifically rejected requests for ETC status
in areas below the wire center level on the basis that such requests would be inconsistent with the
public interest.
On January 22 2004, the FCC released the Virginia Cellular Order which granted in
part and denied in part, the petition of Virginia Cellular, LLC to be designated as an ETC
throughout its licensed service area in the Commonwealth of Virginia. 6 In that Order, the FCC
utilized a new public interest analysis for ETC designations and imposed ongoing conditions and
reporting requirements on Virginia Cellular.7 The FCC further stated that the framework
enunciated in the Virginia Cellular Order would apply to all ETC designations for rural areas
pending further action by the FCC.
Following the framework established in the Virginia Cellular Order on April 12, 2004
the FCC released the Highland Cellular Order which granted in part and denied in part the
petition of Highland Cellular, Inc. to be designated as an ETC in portions of its licensed service
area in the Commonwealth of Virginia. 9 In the Highland Cellular Order the FCC concluded
among other things, that a carrier in a rural study area may not be designated as a competitive
ETC below the wire center level. 10 The FCC explained:
Although the Wireline Competition Bureau previously designated an Erc for portions of
a rural telephone company s wire center, we conclude that making designations for a
portion of a rural telephone company s wire center would be inconsistent with the public
interest. In particular, we conclude, that prior to designating an additional ErC in a
rural telephqne company s service area, the competitor must commit to provide the
supported services to customers throughout a minimum geographic area. A rural
telephone company s wire center is an appropriate minimum geographic area for Erc
designation because rural carrier wire centers typically correspond with county and/or
town lines. We believe that requiring a competitive Erc to serve entire communities will
make it less likely that the competitor will relinquish its ErC designation at a later date.
Because consumers in rural areas tend to have fewer competitive alternatives than
See Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, Virginia Cellular, LLC Petition for Designation as an
Eligible Telecommunications Carrier for the Commonwealth of Virginia CC Docket No. 96-45, Memorandum
Opinion and Order, FCC 03-338 (reI. Jan. 22, 2004) (Virginia Cellular Order).
See Virginia Cellular Order, at ~ 4 46.
See Virginia Cellular Order at ~ 4.
See Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, Highland Cellular, Inc. Petition for Designation as an
Eligible Telecommunications Carrier for the Commonwealth of Virginia CC Docket No. 96-, Memorandum
Opinion and Order, FCC 04-37 (reI. April 12, 2004) (Highland Cellular Order).
10 See Highland Cellular Order at ~ 33.
consumers in urban areas, such consumers are more vulnerable to carriers relinquishing
ETC designation.
The FCC explained that it did not appear that Highland Cellular was deliberately seeking
to enter only certain portions of the study area in order to creamskim.12 Indeed, in its order the
FCC did not include any discussion of the characteristics of the rural exchange. Rather, the FCC
concluded, that as a matter of policy, "making designations for a portion of a rural company
wire center would be inconsistent with the public interest"13 Further, the FCC explained that
prior to designating an additional ETC in a rural telephone company s service area, the
competitor must commit to provide the supported services to customers throughout the rural
telephone company s entire wire center.
Inland's ETC Petition fails to address either the Virginia Cellular Order or the Highland
Cellular Order both of which are relevant to Inland's request to be designated as an ETC in
portions of a wire center. In addition to not addressing the Virginia Cellular Order and the
Highland Cellular Order Inland avoids any mention of the FCC's most recent order on ETC
requirements, the Report and Order FCC 05-, released March 17, 2005 ETC Order
).
In the ETC Order the FCC adopted mandatory criteria that it would apply when
considering requests by carriers to be designated as ETCs, and urged state commissions to apply
II
See Highland Cellular Order at ~ 33
12
See Highland Cellular Order at ~ 26.
13
See Highland Cellular Order at ~ 33.
14
Highland Cellular Order at ~ 33.
15 In the Matter of Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service CC Docket 96-45 Report and Order FCC 05-46
(reI. March 17 2005) ("ETC Order").
those same criteria in considering requests by carriers to be designated as ETCs in state
proceedings.16 Specifically, the FCC explained:
We encourage state commissions to require ETC applicants over which they have
jurisdiction to meet these same conditions and to conduct the same public interest
analysis outlined in this Report and Order. We further encourage state commissions to
apply these requirements to all ETC applicants in a manner that is consistent with the
principle that universal service support mechanisms and rules be competitively neutral.
In the ETC Order the FCC also reiterated that it was contrary to the public interest
requirements of 47 U.c. 9 214(e) to grant ETC designations below the wire center level.
Referring to its earlier Virginia Cellular and the Highland Cellular decisions, the FCC
explained:
We concluded that designating an ETC for only a portion of a wire center served by a
rural incumbent LEC would be inconsistent with the public interest.
18 We also found that
the competitive ETC applicant must commit to provide the supported services to
customers throughout a minimum geographic area. We concluded that a rural telephone
company s wire center is the appropriate minimum geographic area for ETC designation
because rural carrier wire centers typically correspond with county or town boundary
lines.19 We continue to believe, as we stated in the Highland Cellular ETC Designation
Order, that requiring a competitive ETC to serve an entire wire center will make it less
likely that the competitor will relinquish its ETC designation at a later dnte and will best
address creamskimming concerns in an administratively feasible manner.
16
ETC Order at ~ 1.
17 ETCOrderat~ 19.
See id
See id
!d. The FCC also established the following five requirements that applicants for ETC designation must comply
with (1) the ETC applicant must provide a five-year plan demonstrating how high-cost universal service support
will be used to improve its coverage, service quality or capacity in every wire center for which it seeks designation
and expects to receive universal service support; (2) the ETC applicant must demonstrate its ability to remain
functional in emergency situations; (3) the ETC applicant must demonstrate that it will satisfy consumer protection
and service quality standards; (4) the ETC applicant must offer local usage plans comparable to those offered by the
incumbent local exchange carrier in the areas for which it seeks designation; and (5) the ETC applicant must
acknowledge that it may be required to provide equal access if all other ETCs in the designated service area
relinquish their designations pursuant to section 214( e)( 4) of the Act. Frontier urges the Idaho Commission apply
the FCC's ETC standards as a prerequisite to designating Inland as an ETC.
The FCC decisions in Virginia Cellular and Highland Cellular along with the FCC'ETC
Order make it clear that it would be contrary to the public interest to grant Inland's ETC
designation request for the partial wire centers Inland intends to serve.
ID.The Idaho Commission s Clear Talk Order Support Denial of Inland'Request for
ETC Designation In Frontier s Partial Wire Centers.
The Idaho Commission has also previously rejected applications for ETC status in partial
wire centers. The Idaho Commission addressed the issue of CETC designation in a partial wire
center in its Clear Talk Order No. 29541 dated July 23 2004.
In Clear Talk, the applicant was seeking designation as an ETC in "less than the entire
study areas of the affected rural telephone companies in this case. ,,22 In its decision to deny that
application the Idaho Commission stated that "a request for ETC designation for an area less
than the entire study area of a rural telephone company generally raises concerns that an
Applicant intends to "cream skim" in the rural study area.'.23 This Commission agreed with the
FCC's decision in the Highland Cellular Order stating:
Recently, the FCC has found that making designations for a portion of a rural
telephone company s wire center would be inconsistent with the public interest.
Highland Cellular CC Docket No. 96-FCC 04-, 2004 WL 770088 (2004). In
the Highland Cellular decision the FCC reasoned that prior to designating an
additional ETC in a rural telephone company s service area, the competitor must
commit to provide the supported services to customers throughout a minimum
geographic area. This minimum area was found to be a rural telephone company
wire center because rural carrier wire centers typically correspond with county
and/or town lines. Requiring the competitive carrier to commit to a minimum
geographic area would make it less likely that the competitor will relinquish its
ETC designation at a later date. The FCC further noted that consumers in rural
areas tend to have fewer competitive alternatives than those in urban areas and
21 Case No. GNR-O3-, In the Matter of the Petition oflAT Communications, Inc. d/b/a NTCH-Idaho, Inc. or
Clear Talkfor Designation as an Eligible Telecommunications Carrier, and GNR-O3-, In the Matter of the
Application ofNPCR, Inc. d/b/a Nextel Partners Seeking Designation as an Eligible Telecommunications Carrier.
22
Clear Talk Order No. 29541 at p 19.
Id.
such consumers are more vulnerable to carriers relinquishing ETC designation.
The Commission finds that this reasoning is sound. Accordingly, we find that Clear
Talk's lack of commitment to serve at least full wire centers is problematic and thus
it request is inappropriate in this case. We conclude for these reasons that granting
Clear Talk's Application is again not in the public interest.
The Idaho Commission Clear Talk Order supports denial of Inland's request for ETC
designation in Frontier s Elk City and White Bird wire centers.
The Idaho Commission Should Denv Inland's ReQuest for ETC Desismation in
Frontier s Two Partial Wire Centers.
IV.
As noted above, the FCC has concluded that a competitive carrier seeking ETC
designation in a rural study area may not be designated as a competitive ETC below the wire
center level. The Idaho Commission has reached a similar conclusion. Inland Cellular
application to be designated an ETC for only portions of a number of Frontier s rural Idaho wire
centers is in direct opposition to the standard set forth by the FCC and of that set by this
Commission in the Clear Talk Order. Therefore, the Idaho Commission should reject Inland
Cellular s Petition to be designated as an ETC in areas that are below the wire center level.
Specifically, the Idaho Commission should deny Inland's request to be designated as an ETC in
the Frontier wire centers of Elk City and White Bird.
Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, Frontier respectfully requests that the Idaho Commission
deny Inland's request to be designated as an ETC in portions of Frontier s White Bird and Elk
City exchanges.
Respectfully submitted this 27th day of November, 2006.
CITIZENS TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMPANY OF IDAHO
24 Clear Talk Order No. 29541 at p. 16.
D/B/A FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS OF IDAHO
In He ingsen
anager, Governm
O. Box 708970
Sandy, lJtah 84070
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 801-274-3227
Ingo .Hennigsen~frontiercorp. com
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATIER OF THE PETITION OF
INLAND CELLULAR TELEPHONE COMPANY
FOR DESIGNATION AS AN ELIGffiLE
TELECOMMUNICATIONS CARRIER UNDER
47 US.C. SECTION 214(E)(2)
Case No: INC-06~
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of this filing dated November 2006 by Citizens
Telecommunications Company ofldaho, d/b/a Frontier Communications ofldaho, was this day mailed by
USPS to the following (next day air to PUC Executive Secretary):
Ms. Jean Jewel
Executive Secretary
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
472 W. Washington Street
O. Box 83720
Boise, ill 83720
The Coeur d' Alene Tribe
Chief James Allen, Tribal Chairman
850 A Street
O. Box 408
Plummer, ill 83851
Conley E. Ward
Givens Pursley LLP
601 West Bannock Street
Box 2720
Boise, Idaho 83701-2720
Inland Telephone Company
Douglas Weis, President
O. Box 171
Roslyn, WA 98941
Nez Perce Tribal Executive Committee
Rebecca Miles, Chairman
O. Box 305
Lapwai, ill 83540
Potlatch Telephone Company, Inc.
IDS Telecom
Gail Long, Regulatory Contact
O. Box 1566
Oregon City, OR 97045
James Brooks
Inland Cellular
103 S. 2nd Street
O. Box 688
Roslyn, WA 98941
Qwest Corporation
Theresa Jensen, Director-Regulatory
1600-71st Ave. Room 1806
Seattle, WA 98191
Verizon Northwest, Inc.
David Valdez, Vice President
1800 41st Street
O. Box 1003
Everett, W A 98206
DATED this day of November, 2006