20101217Prehearing Brief.pdf

GIVE SLEY LLP
LAW OFFICES
601 W. Bannoc Street
PO Box 2720, Boise, Idaho 83701
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FACSIMILE: 208 388-1300
WEBSITE: ww.givenspursley.com
Gary G. Allen
Peter G. Barton
Christopher J. Beeson
Clint R. Bolinder
Erik J. Bolinder
Jeremy C. Chou
William C. Cole
Michael C. Creamer
Amber N. Dina
Elizabeth M. Donick
Kristin Bjorkman Dunn
Thomas E. Dvork
Jeffrey C. Feraday
Justin M. Frein
Martin C. Hendrtckson
Cynthia A. Melillo
Direc Dial: [phone]
E-Mail: camilgivenspurslev.com
December 17, 2010
Jean Jewell, Secretary
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
472 West Washington Street
Boise, 10 83720
Re:
Our File:
TFW-T-09-01
1233-200
Dear Ms. Jewell:
Steven J. Hippler
Donald E. Knickehm
Debora K. Krstensen
Anne C. Kunkel
Michael P. Lawce
Franklin G. Lee
David R. Lombardi
Emily L. McClure
Kenneth R. McClure
Kelly Greene McConnell
Cynthia A. Melillo
Christopher H. Meyer
L. Edwrd Miler
Patrick J. Miler
Judson B. Montgomery
Deborah E. Nelson
Kelsey J. Nunez
W. Hugh O'Riordan, LL.M.
Angela M. Reed
Justin A. Steiner
Conley E. Ward
Robert B. White
RETIRED
Kenneth L. Pursley
James A. McClure
Raymond D. Givens (1917-200)
9~
%C"-.J..~
jf~
Enclosed for filing in the above matter, please find an original and seven copies of
Idaho Telecom Allance's Prehearing Brief.
Sincerely,~MJ
Oynthia A. Melilo
CAM/sp
Enclosures
cc: Mitchell Brecher
Molly O'Learry
Joe Miler
(all via electronic mail, wI encl.)
1040351_1.DOC
--c:z-ø-a:o
Cynthia A. Melillo
GIVENS PURSLEY LLP
601 W. Bannock Street
P.O. Box 2720
Boise, 10 83701
[phone]
[phone] (fax)
Attorneys for Idaho Telecom Allance
103568_2.DOC
r""r="~L_
"nino,.", l'Luni 't.L ¡rr'l ~: 38
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION
OF APPLICANT TRACFONE
WIRELESS, INC. FOR DESIGNATION
AS AN ELIGIBLE
TELECOMMUNICATIONS CARRIER
CASE NO.: TFW-T-09-01
PRE-HEARING BRIEF OF IDAHO
TELECOM ALLIANCE; LEGAL AND
FACTUAL ISSUES; AND REQUEST FOR
HEARING
In Order No. 32127, the Idaho Public Utilties Commission ("Commission"), in the above
entitled case requested that each party submit prehearing briefs outlining the legal and factual
issues pertaining to this case. On behalf of its member companies, the Idaho Telecom
Allance ("ITA") submits the following legal and factual issues in opposition to the First
Amended Application of TracFone Wireless, Inc. for Designation as an Eligible
Telecommunications Carrer (the "Application"). TracFone Wireless, Inc. will be referred to
herein as "TracFone" or the "Applicant."
A. Legal Issues.
As more particularly set forth below, Applicant does not meet all of the legal
requirements of the State of Idaho in order to receive Eligible Telecommunications Carrer
("ETC") designation.
PREHEARING BRIEF OF IDAHO TELECOM ALLIANCE; LEGAL AND FACTUAL ISSES;
AND REQUEST FOR HEARING
TFW-T-Q9-Q1 - 1
1. The Applicant Does Not Meet the Requirements for ETC Designation in
Rural Telephone Company Study Areas.
Applicant seeks ETC designation in the study areas of "rural telephone companies," as
defined in 47 U.S.C. § 153(37). TracFone does not meet the requirements of the Commission
for designation as an ETC in those study areas, because the Commission may not designate
any additional ETCs in study areas of rural telephone companies unless the Commission finds
that such designation is in the public interest. The ITA contends that the public interest
requirement is a primary issue in this case, and the ITA asks this Commission to schedule a
hearing to allow for testimony or to deny the Application without a hearing.
The Application fails to specifically set forth the study areas in which TracFone seeks
ETC designation. Rather, it states that it seeks such designation in all areas served by AT&T
Mobilty, T-Mobile and Verizon Wireless (the "Underlying Carrers"). Based upon a review of
the coverage maps of the Underlying Carriers, it appears the Underlying Carriers provide
services in all or some portion of the service areas of the following rural telephone companies,
each of which is an ETC and all of which provide wireline Lifeline services: Albion Telephone
Company ("Albion"), Cambridge Telephone Company ("CTC"), Custer Telephone Cooperative,
Inc. ("Custet'), Direct Communications Rockland, Inc. ("Direct"), Farmers Mutual Telephone
Cooperative Association, Inc. ("Farmers"), Filer Mutual Telephone Company ("Filet'), Fremont
Telcom Co. ("Fremont"), Inland Telephone Company ("Inland"), Midvale Telephone Exchange,
Incorprated ("Midvale"), Mud Lake Telephone Cooperative Association, Inc. ("Mud Lake"),
Oren-Idaho Utilties ("Oregon,.ldaho"), Project Mutual Telephone Cooperative Association,
Inc. (Project Mutual"), Rural Telephone Company ("Rural") and Silver Star Telephone
Company, Inc. ("Silver Stat').
PRE HEARING BRIEF OF IDAHO TELECOM ALLIANCE; LEGAL AND FACTUAL ISSES;
AND REQUEST FOR HEARING
TFW:.T-09-o1- 2
Based on the Application, it is clear that Applicant does not have the capabilty to
provide the supported service to the entire study areas of these rural companies nor does the
Application provide a detailed plan as to how Applicant wil provide such service within a
reasonable period of time. Furthermore, Applicant even states on page 6 of Exhibit 12 to the
Application that Applicant does not guarantee coverage or service availabilty even within its
proposed coverage area.
The Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 (the "Act") provides that in those areas
served by a rural telephone company, "the State commission may designate more than one
common carrer as an eligible telecommunications carrier." 47 U.S.C. § 214 (e)(2) (emphasis
added). Prior to any such designation, the Commission must find the designation is in the
public interest. Id. The Applicant has failed to demonstrate that the designation of TracFone
as an additional ETC in those areas served by rural telephone companies is in the public
interest.
The Commission has set forth the framework for making its public interest determination
as follows:
(i)n adopting the FCC's proposed public interest analysis, this Commission
adopts an analytical framework for making a public interest determination. This
framework necessarily involves the consideration of certain enumerated factors,
such as the benefits to consumer choice, the unique advantages and
disadvantages of the applicant's service offering, and, where applicable,
consideration of creamskimming. However, the Commission may consider other
relevant public interest determinations in its public interest determination. Order
No. 29841 at 15-16.
a. TracFone Has Failed to Demonstrte Any Benefits to Consumer
Choice.
TracFone asserts the public interest benefits include "larger local callng areas,
the convenience and security afforded by mobile telephone service, the opportunity for
PRE HEARING BRIEF OF IDAHO TELECOM ALLIANCE; LEGAL AND FACTUAL ISSES;
AND REQUEST FOR HEARING
TFW-T-01 - 3
customers to control their costs by purchasing in advance only the volumes of service which
they need and supplementing those quantities on an 'as needed' basis after exhausting their
monthly supply of free service, and, availabilty of E911 service in accordance with the FCC's
E911 requirements." Application at 19. Yet, notwithstanding the assertion that the availabilty
of E911 service through mobile telephone service is a public interest benefit, the Applicant
states on page 8 of Exhibit 12 that Applicant cannot ensure the availabilty of 911 service.
Such terms and conditions direct the customer to locate a land line phone in the event of an
emergency.
Considering that Applicant is providing only resold services on already existing
networks, the local callng area wil not be expanded by TracFone's designation as an ETC.
Moreover, the convenience and security of wireless service is not determinative of serving the
public interest. In fact, there are very real disadvantages and challenges to providing wireless
service in many portions of Idaho due to mountainous terrin and other geographic features
such that mobile service is not necessarily more convenient or secure than wireline service.
The other public interest benefis listed by TracFone are not necessarily benefits to consumer
choice. Had TracFone provided all other incumbent local exchange carrers ("LECs") local
usage plans as required by the Commission, the Commission would be better able to compare
TracFone's plan against other plans already in place. Without such additional. information and
absent any meaningful comparison, the Application on its face does not provide any
compellng evidence that such plans by TracFone provide any real..benefitto consumer choice.
TracFone's primary assertion that designation as an ETC would serve the public
interest is that such designation wil promote competition, especially in the rural areas.
Application at 18. The Commission, in determining whether it is in the public interest to
PREHEARING BRIEF OF IDAHO TELECOM ALLIANCE; LEGAL AND FACTUAL ISSES;
AND REQUEST FOR HEARING
TFW-T-09-1- 4
designate a competitive ETC in a rural telephone company's servce area, has stated that "the
value of increased competition, by itself, is not suffcient to satisfy the public interest test in
rural areas." See Order 29541 at 6 (quoting Virginia Cellular, 19 F.C.C.R. at 1574). In fact,
the Commission has denied prior ETC applications because the applicants failed to carr out
their burden of demonstrating that their applications for areas served by rural telephone
companies were in the public interest because those applications placed too much emphasis
on competition. See Order Nos. 29541 and 30212. Moreover, the Commission must consider
the fact that Applicant's proposed service is not competitively neutral. While Applicant can
price its services in any manner it chooses, rural ILEC's have no similar pricing flexibilty and
are bound by this Commission's rules with respect to the establishment of local rates, which in
turn control the Lifeline rates they can offer eligible customers.
b. TracFone Has Failed to Demonstrate Any Unique Advantages of
Applicant's Service Offering.
The Applicant has failed to show any unique advantages or added benefrts to
consumer choice through Applicant's service offerings. Applicant states that the unique
advantage of its service offering is an easy~to-use free handset with free minutes and the
abilty to add more minutes on a pay~as-you~go or pre-paid basis. Application at 23. While the
free handset and pre-paid minutes may be unique advantages to qualifed customers, the
Lifeline program is not unique to Applicant. Each of the rural ETCs provides Lifeline services
through such company's land line offerings, and Syringa Wireless, LLC provides wireless
Lifeline services in its service area. Thus, Applicant would have the Commission find that a
limited use handset with 67 free minutes a month is such a unique advantage that it outeighs
all disadvantages of designating TracFone as an ETC in the service areas of rural telephone
companies. Through the servce offerings of the rural telephone companies and the
PREHEARING BRIEF OF IDAHO TELECOM ALLIANCE; LEGAL AND FACTUAL ISSES;
AND REQUEST FOR HEARING
TFW- T-09-1 - 5
Underlying Carrers, the potential end users already have access to a full range of wireline and
wireless services, including discounted services associated with their Lifeline programs. The
coverage area offered by TracFone is no larger than that offered by its Underlying Carrers.
TracFone does not intend to invest in the service areas or increase coverage areas by the
addition of any new facilties (except those provided by the Underlying Carrers). It would
appear that the only unique advantage of TracFone's service offering is that certain qualifying
low income customers can obtain a free handset and free minutes and the abilty to purchase
pre-paid services versus entering longer term service contracts.
The negative impact on consumer choice, however, far outweighs the unique
advantages. TracFone asserts that designation of TracFone as an ETC wil "provide an
incentive to the incumbent LECs serving those portions of the state to improve their existing
networks in order to remain competitive, resulting in improved services to consumers"
(Application at 20). TracFone has failed to specify why it believes this will happen or to provide
any explanation or examples as to how this incentive wil work. While this assertion may be
true in other states where TracFone has been designated an ETC, it is not true in Idaho. As
rural Idaho telephone companies lose customers and accss lines to companies such as
TracFone, they wil lose revenues. Specifically, these revenues include local service revenue,
related ancilary services revenue such as call forwarding, call waiting, etc. and intrastate and
interstate long distance revenues. These revenues have been used by Idaho's rural telephone
companies to invest in improvements to their systems and facilties to provide the latest
services and technologies to residents of rural Idaho. The increased competition and/or simply
the designation of additional ETCs may result in a reduction in such funding Which wil result in
a reduction, rather than an increase, in improvements to existing networks. Moreover, such
PREHEARING BRIEF OF IDAHO TELECOM ALLIANCE; LEGAL AND FACTUAL ISSES;
AND REQUEST FOR HEARING
TFW-T-Q1 -6
reduction in funding wil result in an increase in USF draws to those companies receiving USF
support, thereby placing a greater burden on the USF. Keeping in mind that TracFone has not
committed to providing any facilties or improving any network in Idaho, taking funding sources
away from those companies that do provide the facilties wil ultimately result in less services
available to rural areas. Furthermore, as ETCs, these companies have carrer of last resort
obligations, obligations that TracFone cannot meet. Moreover, because TracFone offers the
benefit of pre-paid services, TracFone has stated it is not obligated to contribute to the Idaho
Telephone Service Assistance Program ("ITSAP"), the Idaho Universal Service Fund ("USF")
or into any county funds for the provision of 911 and E911 services. Again, as customers
migrate from those companies required to contribute to those funds, the funds wil be depleted,
again resulting in less funds to invest in providing the services to rural Idaho. In addition, lost
interstate revenues wil also result in reduced contributions to the federal Universal Service
Fund, putting upward pressure on the contribution rate set by the FCC.
One of TracFone's seemingly most compellng arguments is that Applicant's
services are necessary because "Idaho's statewide Lifeline participation rate is only 22.1
percent of eligible households.
II Application at page 23. This statement appears in the
comments of Governor Otter and those of Representative Jaquet. However, as noted in the
footnote to Applicant's statement, that data was from a report issued in 2004 - prior to the
designation of other ETCs in these servce areas. It is interesting that the more current
statistics are provided only in that footnote which states that the participation rate for Idaho in
2008 was between 20 and 50 percent The information provided on the Universal Service
Administrative Company website shows participation rates for Idaho in 2009 as between 20
and 50 percent, along with at least half the states in the United States; Presumably many of
PRE HEARING BRIEF OF IDAHO TELECOM ALLIANCE; LEGAL AND FACTUAL ISSES;
AND REQUEST FOR HEARING
TFW-T-09-o1- 7
those states shown with participation rates between 20 and 50 percent are states in which
TracFone has previously been designated an ETC to provide its Lifeline services. Such
statistics are not an indication that TracFone wil necessarily increase Lifeline participation any
better than Idaho's existing service providers have already done and continue to do in Idaho.
In fact, Applicant states that two of the designated wireless ETCs in Idaho, Syringa Wireless,
LLC and Cleartalk, served approximately 1,600 Lifeline customers in 2008. Using Applicant's
analysis, that number increased to 1,725 in 2009. If the first quarter of 2010 numbers are
annualized, the number of customers served by Syringa Wireless 1 in 2010 increases to 2,115.
That represents approximately a 30 percent increase in Lifeline customers served by Syringa
Wireless, LLC in just two years.
c. Consideration for Creamskimming.
By providing services only in areas served by the Underlying Carriers and not
committing to provide any improvements to the existing networks or facilties, there is great
potential for creamskimming by Applicant. Applications for ETC designation that include an
entire service area avoid the specter of creamskimming; however, that is not the case where
an application seeks ETC designation that does not include all the.wire centers that make up a
service area. The Act requires that companies seeking an ETC designation must provide the
services supported by universal support mechanisms "throughout the service area for which
the designation is received." 47 U.S.C. § 214(e). The Act further provides, "In the case of an
area served by a rural telephone company, 'service area' means such company's 'study area.'''
47 U.S.C. § 214(e)(5). When comparing the coverage area maps of the Underlying Carrers
with the Idaho rural telephone companies' service area maps on file with the Commission, it is
i Cleartalk becme a member of Syringa Wireless, LLC in 2009, so no longer has its own statistics.
PREHEARING BRIEF OF IDAHO TELECOM ALLIANCE; LEGAL AND FACTUAL ISSES;
AND REQUEST FOR HEARING
TFW-T-09-01 - 8
not clear that the Applicant can meet this fundamental requirement for ETC designation in
most, if not all, of the affected rural telephone companies' service areas, thereby avoiding the
specter of creamskimming. Specifically, it does not appear that Applicant wil provide
coverage in the entirety of the study areas of Albion, CTC, Custer, Direct, Filer, Midvale,
Oregon-Idaho, Rural and Mud Lake. Whether it provides service throughout the entirety of the
Farmers, Fremont, Project Mutual and Silver Star service areas cannot be determined without
further investigation. Applicant is not required to provide services over any of its own facilties.
Applicant has not provided any two-year network improvement plan that states how it wil serve
areas within a study area not currently being served. Rather, Applicant simply wants to be
able to obtain federal funds to provide services already made available by others to areas
already well-served by others with no obligation, as that imposed on the others, to improve a
network or facilties.
Applicant has not shown that the potential benefit of designating TracFone as an
ETC outweighs the potential harms. TracFone has not shown a committment to providing
universal service throughout the rural areas, and the potential for creamskimming is great.
Designating TracFone an additional ETC in the study areas served by rural telephone
companies is not in the public interest, and the few potential benefits do not outeigh the many
harms that would occur as a result of such designation.
2. The Applicant Does Not Meet the Additional Eligibilty Requirements for
ETC Designation in Idaho.
a. Applicant Has Not Shown a Commitment to Provide Suppo
Services.
Per Commission Order 29841 at Appendix page 2:
The ETC applicant must certify that it wil: (a) provide servce on a timely
basis to requesting customers withih the applicant's service area where
PREHEARING BRIEF OF IDAHO TELECOM ALLIANCE; LEGAL AND FACTUAL ISSES;
AND REQUEST FOR HEARING
TFW-T-0-Q1 - 9
the applicant's network already passes the potential customets premises;
and (b) provide service within a reasonable period of time, if the potential
customer is within the applicant's licensed service area but outside its
existing network coverage, if service can be provided at reasonable cost
by (i) modifying or replacing the requesting customets equipment; (ii)
deploying roof-mounted antenna or other equipment; (iii) adjusting the
nearest cell tower; (iv) adjusting network or customer facilties; (v) resellng
services from another carrets facilties to provide service; and (vi)
employing, leasing or constructing an additional cell site, cell extender,
repeater or other similar equipment.
TracFone simply asserts that it wil provide service wherever the Underlying
Carrers provide service. Whether or not TracFone wil reach any customer outside its
coverage area is solely dependent upon whether the Underlying Carriers wil provide the
facilties to do so. TracFone has not shown any intent to make any improvements to serve
potential customers outside its network coverage area. Furthermore, the Underlying Carriers
who provide the underlying facilties utilzed by Applicant wil likely invest in facilties that
provide a suffcient rate of return on that investment. Because the Underlying Carrers are not
CETCs in Idaho, it is unlikely that an investment in facilties in rural Idaho would provide a
suffcient rate of return.
Applicant further states that it "currently operates in accordance with the spirit of
universal service." Application at page 5. Other than being "universally" available wherever
the Underlying Carrers provide service, TracFone does not operate within the spirit of
universal service. It does not strengthen the Idaho telecommunications network infrastructure,
contribute to state universal service funds or provide carrer of last resort obligations.
b. TracFone Has Not Demonstrated the. Ability to Remain Functonal In
Emergencies.
In regard to remaining functional in emergencies, TracFone simply states that it
relies upon the emergency plans of the Underlying Carriers. TracFone. admits that it does not
PREHEARING BRIEF OF IDAHO TELECOM ALLIANCE; LEGAL AND FACTUAL ISSES;
AND REQUEST FOR HEARING
TFW. T-0-Q1 -10
have access to such plans. TracFone Response to First Production Request at 15. However,
TracFone would like this Commission to find that TracFone has in fact demonstrated the abilty
to remain functional in emergencies because the FCC has such plans and because to date
there have been no concerns. TracFone has not, however, demonstrated that it has a
"reasonable amount of back-up power to ensure functionality without an external power
source, is able to re-route traffc around damaged facilties, and is capable of managing
different traffc spikes resulting from emergency situations."
c. TracFone Has Failed to Provide a Description of its Local Usage
Plans and Those of the Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers.
This Commission has not required an applicant to show that its usage plan is
comparable to that of the incumbent LECs. Rather, it has simply asked Applicant to provide
the local usage plans along with those of the incumbent LECs so the Commission can better
determine whether Applicant's plan provides any unique advantages. Applicant has failed to
provide the relevant information.
Because TracFone does not meet all the requirements set forth by the
Commission to be designated an ETC, particularly in rural telephone company service areas,
the ITA respectfully requests this Commission deny the Application.
B. Factual. Issues.
1. Does All ofTracFone's Lifeline Support Flow Through to Customer?
FCC Rules require, and TracFone asserts, that all of its Lifeline support flows through to
the eligible Lifeline customers in the form of 67 free minutes of service. The 67. free minutes
are calculated base upon a rate of $.20 per minute, which is TracFone's retail rate. Without
access to TracFone's contracts with its Underlying Carrers and a breakdown of TracFone's
costs in providing the service, the Commission cannot verify that $.20 per minute is TracFone's
PREHEARING BRIEF OF IDAHO TELECOM ALLIANCE; LEGAL AND FACTUAL ISSES;
AND REQUEST FOR HEARING
TFW-T-09-o1 -11
cost to provide the service. Thus, there is no verification that all support flows through to the
customer, or if TracFone is obtaining a financial benefit from receiving the government support.
2. Is TracFone Exempt From Paying into County Emergency Funds?
TracFone contends that it is not required to pay into county funds for 911 emergency
services. County emergency agencies dispute this. This issue requires more investigation.
3. Is TracFone Prepared to Offer Services into the Foreseeable Future?
Again, without access to TracFone's contracts with the Underlying Carriers, there
remains a factual issue as to how long TracFone wil remain in business in Idaho. We do not
know the length of the term of the contracts or what might trigger an early termination event.
4. Are TracFone's Lifeline Application Procedures Adequate to Prevent Fraud
and Abuse?
The October 2010 United States Government Accountabilty Office Report to
Congressional Requesters entitled "Telecommunications Improved Management Can
Enhance FCC Decision Making for the Universal Service Fund Low-Income Program" ("GAO
Report") stated that 76% of the 41 performance audits performed reported more than one
Lifeline claim per household. The only control Applicant uses to determine eligibilty, whether
applicant is the head of household and whether there are any other Lifeline claimants at the
same address, is a signed affdavit of the Applicant. Has TracFone ever been audited to
determine how well this system works to prevent fraud? If so, what were the results of such
audits? If not) in light of the recent GAO Report, does TracFone have any plans to reduce the
risk of fraud?
PREHEARING BRIEF OF IDAHO TELECOM ALLIANCE; LEGAL AND FACTUAL ISSES;
AND REQUEST FOR HEARINGTFW-T-0t-12
5. Quality of Service; Customer Complaint Information.
TracFone asserts at page 14 of the Application that "Throughout its ten years of
existence, TracFone's service reliabilty has compared favorably with that of any facilties-
based operator in the wireless telecommunications industry." Applicant has provided no
support for this assertion. Nor has Applicant provided any information as to where its
customer service operations for Idaho wil be performed. Wil there be local TracFone offces
in rural Idaho communities? Wil TracFone be required to submit customer complaint
information to the Commission? How can TracFone ensure quality of service when they do
not control the underlying facilties used to provide service? A simple search of the Internet
reveals many customer complaints with customer service, and such complaints appear to
indicate that TracFone's customer service functions are out-sourced. A common complaint is
long wait times resulting in use of minutes, lack of English-speaking service representatives
and long wait times to receive SIM cards and/or phones. There is an inherent problem with
discovering that a problem exists at such time as a customer has an emergency and needs the
service.
6. When Does TracFone Begin to Receive Lifeline Support?
Because Lifeline customers must sign up for service on-line and wait for their free
Lifeline-funded handset, and in light of the comments stating that customers have sometimes
waited for up to several months to receive their handsets, an issue is raised as to when
TracFone begins to receive support. Does TracFone receive support from the time the
application for Lifeline is made or at the time TracFone commences service to that customer
with a fully functional handset?
PRE HEARING BRIEF OF IDAHO TELECOM ALLIANCE; LEGAL AND FACTUAL ISSES;
AND REQUEST FOR HEARING
TFW-T-og.1- 13
7. Impact of Universal Service Fund.
Interestingly, Applicant asserts that its designation as an ETC wil have a negligible
impact on the Universal Service Fund. However, TracFone received zero percent of total
Lifeline support in 2007. In 2008, TracFone received less than one percent of the total support
paid in 2008. That number jumped to 22 percent of the total support paid in 2009, and
32 percent of the total for the first quarter of 2010. Total TracFone receipts for 2009 were
$189 millon; and annualizing the first quarter of 2010 indicates that TracFone wil receive
approximately $334 milion in 2010. That is not a negligible impact. Coupled with the fact that
the performance audits show that in 76 percent of the audits performed, there is more than one
Lifeline claim per household, and TracFone has no real controls other than the affdavit of the
customer, there is huge potential for abuse of the Universal Service Fund.
c. ITA Requests a Hearing.
ITA continues to request that a hearing be set in this matter. There are legal and factual
issues, and TracFone has failed to provide suffcient information to resolve those issues. ITA
respectfully requests the opportunity to conduct further discovery and present evidence.
PREHEARING BRIEF OF IDAHO TELECOM ALLIANCE; LEGAL AND FACTUAL ISSES;
AND REQUEST FOR HEARING
TFW-T-Q9-Q1- 14
DATED this 1 ¡th day of December 2010.
GIVENS PURSLEY LLP
(lt~a lí1o
Cynthia A. Melilo
Attorneys for Idaho Telecom Allance
PREHEARING BRIEF OF IDAHO TELECOM ALLIANCE; LEGAL AND FACTUAL ISSES;
AND REQUEST FOR HEARING
TFW-T-091 - 15
ç!iaIlglÇAIF QE §I;R\fIÇg
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 17th day of December 2010, I caused to be served a
true and correct copy of the foregoing by the method indicated below, and addressed to the
following:
Mitchell F. Brecher
Debra McGuire Mercer
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
2101 L Street, NW, Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20037
brechermØ2gtlaw.com
mercerdmØ2gtlaw.com
~ U.S. Mail
. .'.Overnight Mail
~:1~~:;)
U.S. Mail
Overnight Mail
Hand Delivery
Fax
Electronic Mail
Jean Jewell
Idaho Public Utilties Commission
472 West Washington Street
Boise, 10 83702
Molly O'Leary
RICHARDSON & O'LEARY, PLLC
P.O. Box 7218
Boise, 10 83707
mollyØ2richardsonandolearv.com
U.S. Mail
..Overnight Mail
Hand Delivery
Fax
:Electronic Mail
Dean J. Miler
McDEVITT & MILLER LLP
420 West Bannock Street
Boise, ID 83702
joeaymcdevitt-miler.com
U.S. Mail
Overnight Mail
. Hand Delivery
Fax
Electronic Mail
~¡j2(jJ.JN
Cynthia A. Melilo
Tt
PREHEARING BRIEF OF IDAHO TELECOM ALLIANCE; LEGAL AND FACTUAL ISSES;
AND REQUEST FOR HEARING
TFW-1'-Q1.-16