20050531Comments.pdf

/~~biZ'! ot;
5/31105
MatthewCastrigno
3200 N GJen Stuart Lane
Eagle, m83616
lean 0, Ie\veU
Commission' Secretary
IdaboPublicUtilities
412W . Washington Street
Boise ID 83702...5983
./
fA.i 110 u~s
:;CCE'IVED
,-,,"
.' Ii
. ,"",
;0 '
L;';"1
';""""-
?Dfi5HJftY 31 AH1U:O1
IDFd-1O PUBLiC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
Re: Coaiments on and protest to, IPUCCaseNQ. TJ\M...T...O5...
Dear Jean
Please deliver theseoommentrntnd protest to tbeldaboPoblitUtiUties .Comnusstou..,
Th~y are in. respon8e to above ret'erenced~pplicatiornmd the ~~NdticeofModified
" "."...' ".!, "
O~"".ro~ure"' CueT O. "
I herbyprotesx to ,the HModifiedPro~ednre tJ~ingu$ed inptoces$ing tbisappii catiol1 al1d
tftbe Cornnlissiotl does use the 4~ModmedPr()ced(lren
",
that the co.mrnentperlodbe
extended to provide time toaddre$$ certain issutSto be detailed bel()w. I also herby
protest to the IdahoPublicUtilitiegCommissiQugrmting th.eapplioont it 'ritIe'2Iicerl~
to provide phone semce..
The "ModmedProcedure"" is, not ,appropriate' beca:t.1se, tbereare ,issues Or fact' with 'respect
to this application mda publichearlng is n~ded$otbat theappUcant ,.canbequestioned
on certain ques.tiot)s of tact under oath.
The appHcatlot1 asserts that there Is aoompetitive carrier (frontier CotImll:micatlot);s) in
and the area they arecurrendy servi:ql 'without a Jiceusc; 1 own 8, homelt1 ,tile TamaracK
Resort where theappJicant is currendyprovidings~rvice, I btve made repeated attempts
to secure telephone service from Fronder andeacbtimebave. been told that loan not get
service from them in,tbellesort. ,I.hftveuked,tbe.applicant ifthere\vere,any alternative
providers of telephone service and tb~yb~V'eindic&tedthattbere is not J beU~ve this
i$$ue is a legitimate questiot1 offacttba,trequires a response from the~ppJicant under
oath Mdwhere concerned parties cpbear thQSemlS"Vers,
:Publiccolnrnent on Case 'No. T AM.;T -05,.,01
...
Page I of4
Another question or fact is the assertion by tbeapplicant thattney are goIng to provide
V()ioo Over lute.met ,ProtooolH (VOIP), Current service oftered, bytheapplicantisnot
VIOP as defined bytbe FCC Of as deflnedby tbe market place. Todes\;ribethe,$ervice
they offer asVIO,P isfal$em1ddec~p'tj\le, Tbea,pU~t's0xistingfaci1itie~~rtently
pro\~din8 ut11i~t'r~dph()rt~ seMceiItnOuot.. to., a.. S~gra.pbic~lty'. di$p~~" PBX (private
branch c8:change) system. Whi~ethev()ice iSplcketited, (tt)iltl1e bytesmariged Ihm 1ft
format, the cml never goes ,overtbe Intern~t.Jl1enC~d~f1iesVOIP 'IS a service
provided on top of; orin addition to
, .
anlnte~1e:t~nnijt::ti~n, Notpadketized voice over a
private network which is wbatthe~ppli~thaJcot1stm(zt~iattner~ort. In fact the
unUoensed phone service is ofterea 38ft standalone prouuct-wltnoutatllnternet
oormection.NoInternet c()ntlecti()n~ no VOIP, Even Whetlthe pbone service is bundled
witbmtemet service thephonecaUs do not go over the Internet and hence is not VOIP"
Tbemarketplaoo deflt1eS V OIP,servi~e as a Hat rate pboneservicetbat ,pftYvides a large
number or unlimited number of minutes of usage for 'entire US, and ~metime$ Canftda,
The service provided by theappUcant has'to!lcmuges tocaUm()stot~Idahoand beyol1d.
1 believe this issue l$ale~timatequestionoffact tnatrequire8 it; response from die
applIcant under oath aud wbereoorn:remedpEt.t1j~$canfiear tboseans\\lers.
Anotberreason for a public hearing, "'11011ot the ~~M:t1difiedProcedure" 1$ to have the
applicmt respond 'Ltc) tbecompl.aint:sthatbavebeenfiled witb tbe PUC about the
appli.cants UJ)li~ensed. (and, subsequently illegaI)pbone service. The staff's'bould share
those complaints 'with the 'Commission ', a public 'b~mingMdapplicant ,should f$pond
under oath.
If tbe, Commission uses the (tModifiedProcedure
,)'
theoommel1tperlodsbo1.11dbe
extended 'for two, reasons. First, the ,Ippli~ation' isincomplete.l"beuotioo. and comment
period ,bas commenced .witb theappncationnbtb~pgcompl~te.Ex:bibitsfor the amended
appJi~tionare not on the webjtc.andasofthis'wtitittg, Only adrdtbnn oftbeeZ\nibit$
has been made available by chance' BvoweekS into the 'oommentpedod, Secondly,this
applicitionaftects property o'wnersin a resort Inany(if n(lt most) of which ,live out of
state. The normal noti6cationprocessis un1ikelytoreachthem. The property owners
should be notified by-rowl, at the veryJeast tbose'persol1s who filed aoomplaint about the
applicant's unlicensed pboneservice~bould bespooifitallynotifioo.
The follovlinsare, other comments. that are independefitof reasons to not use the
.t!~.;.
" ,......=
..1 ,
))
v-+, ,.I:
, "+ ,:, ,.
O\!IU~ .r~ure or oeA\enU" ,He, oonuneu1. ,peno ,
, ,
The amended application states in section II(3)that;~Ithasretain.ed the services of
experienced, tel ecommuni cationsperso nnel to Inauageits'telecommunications, system.
Names and resumes fortbese individuals willbetllrwinedto the Commission under
set)!rate cover. ~'If this intonnationisrelevant to theappUca.tioJ1t then it should be made
public and not Hprovided under separateoover
Public comment on Case No. TAM..:T-O5..Page :2 of4
I would like to ask the CommIssion as to why the!p,licat'ttha.~b~enaU()wed toprQvide
service witbo~t a license? TbeapplicDfb~s beenaUow~t()ooJleotrevenue~n8!ged inan business. If theapplicantlutd tim~C()nstrmnts theycouldba-ve not collected
fees for the service until being l~gal. So not only havetbeynotbeenfi.ned tbeyhave
collected money fi'om the public.
As mentioned eadieI" the applicant ~ s cu.rrent facilities. amount. ;to .agoographicaUy
dispersed PBX. As is typicaJly witha.PB~ the user t'U'tu;t dial a nine to get an ~~()utside
linen which intbis Ca$e isifpbonecI11i.splacedtoapbone.outsideofthe resort It
appears that such a dialingplW1 does not support ":911 "cIl1$. This. seeoosto be a. wety
hazard especially sinQe so many users wiUbecoming ttPmother areas were "911" is in.
use. Tbe lzCC has recentbt ruledtbatVOIPserviceprovide ':f.~llln. 1 would like the
Cotllmission .toaddre5s .this issue with. the applicant.. and have the applicant provide
answers underOltfl.
Thestatu$ a'Sa Tide 62 telephone. serviteproviaerf'ortheappUcantseems inappropriate
if not iliegal given the.l111ture oftbe.a.pplicantsoutside.plant Tbe.oompany tbat.h&s
ownership oithe .appticant) Tamar~k&esortLLC) ~buj)tares()rt(setVicean~a) and
teleoommu111 cations f(icilitiesthat effectively makes it impoS;sible foroompetition to
exist. Theoove11antsmake itimpossibletor..tr~mit radio sipalsfor distribution
without the. tppHc&1t'$ . owneri' spermission. The 's;ppUcant' s service area. has .no' public
roadways or public. easements. yet homesandbome. sites are sold to the public.
Essentially the properties o'Wned bytbe publ.icare islands .surroundedby a..sea.ofproperty
owned and controUedby the applicant's owner, Th~outsideplantdoes not use
traditional' oopperwires. for. phone service bot mthermultiplexes the signals ()I)tt). :fiber
optic cables used for the delivery of other luJregulatedservicesprovide by the app1icaot
Tbenetwotk. termination unit on thebom~$is subsequently atypical' as well as the cMtnti
office equipment making it. ne~t to impossible for facilities to be shared. It appears that
theappli cant) sownen;hip hu" treated ae,t'lvtronment with the deUber~te intention.
prec1uding the possibility ofoo.mpet:ition. Competition is the essential differentiator of a
Title' 62 provider.
The previously mentioned draft of the applicantt sapplication exhibits shows a tariff for
basic residen.tialpbone service of$52.50/month yet the currentpboneservice oftered .
the applicanrcost S75JJQ/montn. I would like the Commission toa~k tneappticant to
explain this situation, Another question about the current phone service versus tbe
$C:rvice to be provided under the applied for Hcertse baste. do with tbe actualpbone
CPE). Currently; 5ubscrlbersarerequired to use a proprietarypboneprovided by the
applicant (Sbould the applicant testify that this is an ~'IP'; phone let me assure you that
you connect this phone to your Internet connecdonitwUlnotworic. It is meant to. be used
with phone manufatturersPBX.) Thequesti on tbatsbould be asked by the Commission is
iftbelicensed service wiHrequire such apbone.. Tbisveryimportant question because
tbecufrentservice requires subscribers to use a proprietary' pboneand payanadditionai
Public comment on Case No. 'I'AM...r ...OS..!) 1 Page 3 of
monthly charge for eacb additional pbol1e (not additionaJline) intbehome. It 1$ unclear if
tbe~icensed servicewiU requir~ amond'dy charge for each phonein the home.,
I would like to thank the Commission for taking the titne to consider tbese. comments.,
Shoul dtheCommissiotlcboose to bave a,qbli (j heating 1 would appear at the
Commission '$ request to tU1$wer e.nyquestions it may baveregarding tnesecommel1ts
and protest
Respectfully submitted,
Matthew Castrigno
Cc:Shelby Weimer
T amarat,k Videotnd T el~om) l.;LC
960 Broadwa;y Averule1 Suite 100
:Boise Idabo 83706
Via US Mai1
Publ.ic OOID.ment onCa$e No. T AM,.:r...O5..Page 4 of It