20050429Comments.pdf

t, C \ \ t.r: (
"'
II)t'\.,J L 1 '1 L -
r'~
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISStO-N '"_.
nf~APR 29 rii';; 9:4'
vvv f.. IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF
WWC HOLDING CO., INC. DBA CELLULAR-
ONE(ID SEEKING DESIGNATION AS AN
ELIGIBLE TELECOMMUNICATIONS
CARRIER THAT MAY RECEIVE FEDERAL
UNIVERSAL SERVICE SUPORT
; c..
.,.
Ui;c.CASE NO. WST-O5-1i :
~~ ,: ,~~'
'A c::,~J(\ii' \i\f""J ,UtI:! .........
'\
Iv, ,i \~
COMMENTS OF CITIZENS
COMMUNICATIONS OF
IDAHO, dba FRONTIER
COMMUNICATIONS
Citizens Telecommunications Company of Idaho, dba Frontier Communications of
Idaho (Frontier) recommends that The Idaho PSC, as part of its ETC designation
analysis, require that Western Wireless meet all of the conditions recommended by the
FCC in its recent order. Western Wireless has not fulfilled the obligations included in the
FCC's order. Therefore, Frontier supports Idaho Telephone Association s (ITA) motion
to dismiss.
Further, Frontier believes that independent of the FCC's newly established conditions
Western Wireless has not met its obligation to demonstrate that the benefits of Granting it
ETC status outweigh the costs. Therefore, if the Commission determines not to dismiss
this case it should reject Western Wireless' application as not in the public interest as
currently filed. ,(note: this sentence does not read plainly, would the addition of the
word should, make it read better:)
The PSC Should Adopt the Conditions Established by The FCC
In its order in Docket No. 05-46 dated February 25 , 2005 , the FCC adopted additional
requirements for Eligible telecommunications Carriers. In that order the FCC encouraged
state commissions that exercise jurisdiction over ETC s to, at a minimum, adopt the
additional requirements when deciding whether to designate a carrier as an ETC. In the
introduction to its order the FCC stated that the application of the additional requirements
will allow for a more predictable ETC designation process and improve the long-term
sustainability of the universal service fund.
The FCC's order contains new Provisions and requirements that should be reviewed and
evaluated as part of this application. As outlined in ITA's motion to dismiss, Western
Wireless' petition does not comply with certain specific new requirements in the FCC'
order.
Section 54.202 (1) (B) requires ETC applicants to "submit a 5 year plan that describes
with specificity proposed improvements or upgrades to the applicants network on a wire
center by wire center basis throughout its proposed designated service area. Each
applicant shall demonstrate how signal quality, coverage or capacity will improve due to
the receipt of high-cost support; the projected start date and completion date for each
improvement and the and the estimated amount of investment for each project that is
funded by high-cost support; the specific geographic areas where the improvements will
be made; and the estimated population that will be served as a result of the
improvements. . .W estern Wireless has not included any such detailed plan in its
current application.
Section 54.202 (2) requires that an applicant demonstrate its ability to remain functional
in emergency situations. In addition to a " reasonable amount of back- up-power, the
applicant must be able to reroute traffic around damaged facilities be capable of
managing traffic spikes resulting from emergency situations. Western Wireless
application does not demonstrate its ability to comply with these requirements and remain
functional in emergency situations.
Section 54.202 (4) requires the applicant to demonstrate that it offers a local usage plan
that is comparable to the one offered by the incumbent LEC in the same service areas.
Western Wireless does not comply with this requirement.
Section 54.202(5) requires an ETC applicant to acknowledge it's potential obligation to
provide equal access if all other ETCs in a designated area relinquish their designations
as required by the new FCC rules. Western Wireless has not done so in this application.
The FCC's order states that the conditions contained in its order should be used as
minimum standards. The Commission can and should implement additional standards as
necessary to ensure that ETC petitions in rural areas are in the public interest.
Western Wireless Has Not Shown that its ETC Designation is in the Public Interest
In deciding whether this application by Western Wireless is in the public interest the PSC
should, as it has in the past, evaluate whether the expected benefits outweigh the costs.
In its ETC order at ~44, the FCC places the burden of proof for costs vs. benefits on the
ETC applicant. The FCC further states, that "the value of increased competition, by itself
is unlikely to satisfy the public interest test." Western Wireless' application at ~ 24
states that "the public interest determination should consider whether the benefits of an
additional ETC outweigh the harm.
At least the direct financial costs of an additional ETC are very clear. Once designated as
an ETC in Idaho, Western Wireless will begin to draw funds from the Federal USF. The
benefits of allowing a second ETC in rural Idaho are less clear. Western wireless seems
to base its position that its designation is in the public interest on the grounds of increased
competition. This is not sufficient.
Western Wireless implies in its application that its designation as a second ETC in rural
areas will result in lower prices. In paragraph 31 of its application it states
, "
Idaho
rural consumers can expect lower rates and better service ". However, Western Wireless
makes no commitments about what rates it will charge or what if any prices it will lower
as a result of receiving USF paYments. The Company states only at ~ 40 that "service
plans are offered to rural customers at the same rates offered in urban areas.It also
makes no commitments to increase it investments in rural Idaho. The company
application at ~ 16 states; "If this application is granted, Western Wireless expects that its
ongoing network investments in the Designated Areas will be similar to those proj ected
in 2005.
At ~ 36 of its application, Western Wireless states that its designation "as an ETC
Western wireless maintains that the designation of a second ETC will not adversely
impact the Federal USF, yet provides no evidence to support this claim. The Federal
USF has grown significantly in the past few years. Although the payments to Western
Wireless for Idaho rural areas may be small in proportion to the size of the overall
Federal USF, the additional of payments to Western Wireless contribute to the increasing
pressures on the viability of the fund.
Frontier believes that Western Wireless' application does not demonstrate that the
benefits of its receiving ETC status in rural Idaho outweigh the costs. Western Wireless
already provides service to many customers in the rural areas where it is requesting ETC
status. These customers may very well see no changes to their service or any reduction in
the prices that they pay as a result of Western Wireless' ETC designation.
Conclusion
Frontier recommends that this Commission adopt the conditions found in the FCC's order
in Docket No. 96-45 (FCC 05-46) as a minimum in deciding whether or not to approve
any ETC application and should reject Western Wireless' application as not in
compliance with those conditions. Also, Frontier does not believe that Western Wireless
has met its burden to show that its application is in the public interest under previously
adopted standards. Therefore, if the PSC decides to go forward with this application
Western Wireless' application for ETC status in rural Idaho should be denied.
Respectfully submitted this day of April, 2005
~b-
Manager, State Government Affairs
Citizens Communications of Idaho dba Frontier
f' I' i \1 I ". i .h,',
"" f"+ Ii
CERTIFICATE OF SERVIE-EiJ
"" ~
' ~M Ql."t;
""'~"""'",,
I-", -.,.U,\i.)
" "
f -
. ""'" ,
" d", f' f' to- '" I certify that the original and 8 copies of the Comments of~itizens Teleconup,~nications
' ,"',,- "
Com~an~ of Idaho d/b/a Fr?ntier Communications of Idah
~, ,
~i~~~_~a~~~;~~fJ~or~
Apphcatlon of WWC HoldIng Co., DBA Cellular-one(B) Se~IdhginreSi~a~lbn as an
Eligible Telecommunications Carrier that may receive Federal Universal Service
Support, were sent for Filing via overnight mail on April 28, 2005 to:
"='
Jean Jewell, Secretary
Idaho Public Service Commission
4 72 W. Washington
Boise, ill 83720
And true and correct copies were forwarded on April 28, 2005, Via Regular mail, to the
following:
Dean J. Miller
McDevitt & Miller, LLP
420 West Bannock Str.
O. Box 2564-83701
Boise, Idaho 83702
Mark J. Ayotte
Briggs and Morgan, P .
2200 First National Bank Building
332 Minnesota Street
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
Conley Ward
Givens Pursley, LLP
O. Box 2720
Boise, ill 83701-2720