20110414Intervenors' Joint Response to TFW's Letter.pdf

RECEIVED
ZOIl APR' 4 PM ~:, 8Bf~r.Ql""l PUATTORNEYS AT LAW
Molly O'Leary lDl~t""lüUTllIìir:s
Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone]
mol Iyfi rich ardsonandoleary. com
P.O. Box 7218 Boise, ID 83707 - 515 N. 27rh St. Boise, ID 83702
14 April 2011
Ms. Jean Jewell
Commission Secretary
Idaho Public Utilties Commission
POBox 83720
Boise ID 83720-0074
Hand Delivered
RE: CASE NO. TFW-T-09-01
INTERVENORS' JOINT RESPONSE TO TRACFONE'S 04.08.11 LETTER
REQUESTING POST-HEARING BRIEFS
Dear Ms. Jewell:
This letter is submitted to the Idaho Public Utilties Commission as a Joint Response from
. the Idaho Telecom Allance and CTC Telecom, Inc. nntervenors'1, to TracFone's letter
dated April 8, 2011, requesting permission for the parties to fie post-hearing briefs.
As you know, the opportunity to file post-hearing briefs in a matter before the
Commission is one of permission, not of right. IDAPA 31.01.01.255. Thus, the
Commission exercises discretion in granting or denying such a request.
Intervenors whole-heartedly agree with Commissioner Smith's statement at the close of
the March 31st hearing on this matter that a kitchen-sink rehash of everyhing in the
record before the Commission is neither necessry nor desirable.
In response to TracFone's request at the conclusion of the March 31st hearing for the
opportunity to file a post-hearing brief, Commissioner Smith specifically direced
TracFone to limit its request to specific legal issues that it believes merit additional
briefing by the parties. When counsel for T racFone, Mr. Brecher, suggested that the
issue of whether T racFone is legally obligated to collec and remit 911 surcharge fees
pursuant to Secion 31-404, Idaho Code should be briefed, Commissioner Smith
responded that since TracFone has taken the position that the Commission does not
have jurisdiction over the issue, further briefing on that issue would be pointless. The
Intervenors concur.
. Page 2 April14,2011
Furthermore, contrary to Commissioner Smith's directive to TracFone that any request
for post-hearing briefs must ihclude an identification of specific, discreet legal issues to be
briefed, no other issues were identified in TracFone's April 8th letter.
Based on TracFone's position that the Commission lacks authority to adjudicate whether
it is required to collec or remit 911 surcharge fees under the Idaho Emergency
Communications Act ("IECA'1, coupled with TracFone's failure to identify any other
speific legal issues that merit post-hearing briefing, T racFone has faHed to establish any
compellng reason for such briefing. Therefore, its request should be denied.
In addition, given TracFone's belated concerns regarding moving this matter along
toward a conclusion, the proposed briefing schedule would only result in further
unnecessry delay. (In fact, TracFone's proposed three-week time frame for fiing its
initial brief on an issue that it has briefed exhaustively in more than a half-dozen other
jurisdictions/in addition to the Federal Communications Commission, appears to be an
inexplicable delay tactic.)
If, however, the Commission is inclined to grant TracFone's request for the opportunity
to..fie a post-hearing brief, we believe the parties' post-hearing briefs should be limited to
the one issue TracFone has identified for briefing (TracFone's obligations under the
I ECA). Furthermore, such a concession to TracFone should only be granted if TracFone
stipulates that it wil be bound by the Commission's decision regarding its obligations
under the IECA.
Sincerely,
cc:
The Honorablè Marsha Smith
The Honorable Mack Redford
The Honorable Paul Kjellander
Mr. Neil Price, Deputy Idaho Attorney General
Mr. D. Joe Miler, Esq.
Mr. Mitchell"Rick" Brecher, Esq.